Jocelyn Sorensen VS Atty Florito T Pozon

JOCELYN SORENSEN VS. ATTY. FLORITO T.
POZON
FACTS
- Jocelyn Sorensen alleges that she first engaged the legal services of Atty. Florito T.
Pozon in 1995 for the reconstitution of the title for the sum of Ten Thousand Pesos
(PhP10,000.00).
- In 1996, complainant again engaged Atty. Pozon’s services to file a petition for the
issuance of a new owner’s copy of the title for the sum of Fifteen Thousand Pesos
(PhP 15,000.00).
- In 2000, complainant engaged Atty. Pozon’s services for a third time to secure the
title of her lot for the sum of Fifteen Thousand Pesos (PhP 15,000.00).
- In 2003, complainant engaged Atty. Pozon as her counsel for the last time to secure
the title of another lot for the sum of Twenty-Four Thousand Pesos (PhP 24,000.00).
-
- In 2011, complainant filed a verified Complaint against Atty. Pozon, with the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines Commission for alleged neglect to handle
complainant’s cases or to at least inform complainant of the progress of the cases,
in violation of Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The
Complaint alleged that despite complainant’s payment amounting to Seventy-Two
Thousand Pesos (PhP 72,000.00), the above mentioned cases have yet to be
concluded.
- In his Answer, Atty. Pozon admitted that he was the legal counsel for complainant.
For the 1995 case, he alleged that the acceptance fee of Ten Thousand Pesos (PhP
10,000.00) was made in several installments. Atty. Pozon alleged that the 1996 case
turned out to be a difficult case because an aggrieved party appeared and filed a
criminal action against complainant including Atty. Pozon. The case was settled
amicably, and complainant decided to forego the case. He alleged that he only
received a partial payment of Three Thousand Pesos (PhP 3,000.00) out of the
agreed upon acceptance fee of Fifteen Thousand Pesos (PhP 15,000.00).
- For the 2000 case, Atty. Pozon alleged that the delay was due to complainant’s
refusal to shoulder Atty. Pozon ‘s travel costs to the Land Registration Office in
Quezon City.
- Lastly, for the 2003 case, Atty. Pozon alleged that the delay was again due to
complainant’s failure to present any witness to show that she or her predecessors-
in-interest possessed the lot since 1940 or prior thereto.
ISSUE
Whether or not Atty. Fiorito T. Pozon is guilty of neglecting the legal matters entrusted
to him by his client.
RULING
When a lawyer accepts a case, his acceptance is an implied representation that he
possesses the requisite academic learning, skill, and ability to handle the case. Thus, a
lawyer’s duty to safeguard the interests of his client commences from his retainer, the
time the lawyer accepts money from a client, until his effective release from the case,
the time the legal matter in litigation is finally disposed of.
In this case, it is undisputed that Atty. Pozon neglected the legal matters entrusted to
him by complainant. He even failed to at least inform complainant of the progress of the
cases. His inaction is clearly in violation of Rules 18.03 and 18.04, Canon 18 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility. The Rules state:
“CANON 18 – A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence.
Rule 18.03 – A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his
negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.
Rule 18.04 -A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his case and shall
respond within a reasonable time to the client’s request for information.
With regard to the appropriate penalty on an errant lawyer, sound judicial discretion
based on the surrounding facts is required. This Court has consistently meted out the
penalty of suspension from the practice of law to lawyers who neglect their client’s
affairs and, at the same time, fail to return the latter’s money and/or property despite
demand.When a lawyer receives money from a client for a particular purpose, the
lawyer is bound to render an accounting to the client showing that the money was spent
for the intended purpose.
Conversely, if the lawyer does not use the money for the intended purpose, he must
immediately return the money to the client.
In the present case, Atty. Pozon failed to safeguard complainant’s interests after the
retainer commenced. His mere acceptance of the money from the client without
fulfilling his duties as a lawyer is indicative of lack of integrity and propriety. His actions
constitute a clear violation of the trust reposed in him by complainant.
THINGS TO REMEMBER:
A) A lawyer’s duty to safeguard the interests of his client commences from his retainer, the time the
lawyer accepts money from a client, until his effective release from the case, the time the legal matter in
litigation is finally disposed of.
B) When a lawyer receives money from a client for a particular purpose, the lawyer is bound to
render an accounting to the client showing that the money was spent for the intended purpose.

Jocelyn Sorensen VS Atty Florito T Pozon

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Jocelyn Sorensen VS Atty Florito T Pozon

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

JOCELYN SORENSEN VS. ATTY. FLORITO T.

You might also like