In Sorensen v. Pozon, the Supreme Court addressed the serious issue of attorney negligence and breach of client trust. The Court found Atty. Fiorito T. Pozon guilty of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility for neglecting his client’s legal matters and failing to keep her informed, thus, he was suspended from law practice for one year and ordered to return a portion of the fees. This ruling underscores the high standard of care and diligence expected of lawyers in handling their clients’ affairs, reinforcing the principle that lawyers must act with competence, fidelity, and transparency. The decision serves as a reminder to the legal profession of the importance of maintaining client trust and diligently fulfilling their duties.

Broken Promises: When an Attorney’s Neglect Undermines a Client’s Trust

This case arose from a series of complaints filed by Jocelyn Sorensen against her former lawyer, Atty. Fiorito T. Pozon, alleging that he neglected the legal matters she entrusted to him. Sorensen had engaged Pozon’s services on multiple occasions between 1995 and 2003 to handle land title issues involving several properties in Cebu. Despite paying a total of PhP 72,000.00, Sorensen claimed that Pozon failed to conclude the cases or even keep her adequately informed about their progress. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) investigated the matter and ultimately found Pozon guilty of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility.

The IBP’s Commission on Bar Discipline submitted two separate reports, both recommending sanctions against Pozon. Commissioner Leo B. Malagar initially recommended an admonishment and the return of PhP 72,000.00, while Commissioner Hannibal Augustus B. Bobis suggested a three-month suspension and the return of PhP 21,000.00. The IBP Board of Governors then modified these recommendations, suspending Pozon from the practice of law for one year and ordering him to return PhP 21,000.00. Sorensen’s complaints centered on Pozon’s alleged violations of Canon 18, Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which require lawyers to serve their clients with competence and diligence, to not neglect legal matters entrusted to them, and to keep clients informed about the status of their cases. The Supreme Court was tasked to assess whether Pozon had indeed violated these rules and, if so, to determine the appropriate penalty.

The Supreme Court began its analysis by reiterating the high standard of conduct expected of lawyers. The Court emphasized that a lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and must be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him, citing Segovia v. Atty. Javier, A.C. No. 10244, 12 March 2018, it provided that acceptance of a case implies that the lawyer possesses the necessary skills and knowledge to handle it. The Court further explained that this duty to safeguard the client’s interests begins from the moment of retainer and continues until the legal matter is fully resolved.

In Pozon’s case, the Court found clear and convincing evidence of neglect. It was undisputed that Pozon had failed to diligently pursue Sorensen’s cases and had also failed to keep her informed about their status. This inaction was a direct violation of Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which explicitly prohibit neglect of legal matters and require lawyers to keep their clients informed.

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.

Having established Pozon’s culpability, the Court turned to the question of the appropriate penalty. The Court acknowledged that it has consistently imposed suspension from the practice of law on lawyers who neglect their clients’ affairs and fail to return their money, citing cases such as Andrada v. Atty Cera, 764 Phil. 346 (2015); Maglente v. Atty. Agcaoili, Jr., 756 Phil. 116 (2015); Segovia-Ribaya v. Atty. Lawsin, 721 Phil. 44 (2013). However, it also recognized that the penalty should be based on the surrounding facts and circumstances of each case. The Court considered the fact that Pozon had no prior administrative record in determining the appropriate sanction.

The Supreme Court addressed the issue of the PhP 72,000.00 in fees paid by Sorensen. While Sorensen claimed that this entire amount should be returned, the Court agreed with the IBP’s finding that only PhP 21,000.00 was warranted. This determination was based on a careful review of the evidence and a determination of which fees were tied to unresolved legal matters. The Commission explained that certain acknowledgement receipts and checks presented by Sorensen could not be directly attributed to Pozon or were related to cases that had already been resolved, thus, the aggregate amount of ten thousand pesos (PhP 10,000.00) represented in the July 4, 1996 acknowledgement receipt, the November 15, 1995 acknowledgement receipt, and the March 17, 1999 acknowledgement receipt were all specified to be for the services rendered by the respondent for Lot 6662 in Pangan-an, Lapu-Lapu City which had already been resolved. Legal services were likewise concluded for the titling of Lot 6659 in Pangan-an, Lapu-Lapu City.

The Court underscored that when a lawyer receives money from a client for a specific purpose, the lawyer is obligated to render an accounting to the client demonstrating that the money was spent for that purpose, citing Meneses v. Atty. Macalino, 518 Phil. 378,385 (2006). If the lawyer fails to use the money as intended, they must promptly return it to the client. In Pozon’s case, his failure to safeguard Sorensen’s interests and fulfill his duties as a lawyer demonstrated a lack of integrity and propriety. This breach of trust further supported the Court’s decision to impose disciplinary sanctions.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court found Atty. Fiorito T. Pozon guilty of violating Rules 18.03 and 18.04, Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Court suspended him from the practice of law for one (1) year, effective immediately upon receipt of the decision. Furthermore, he was sternly warned that any repetition of similar acts would be dealt with more severely in the future. Pozon was also ordered to return PhP 21,000.00 to Sorensen, with interest at 6% per annum from the finality of the decision until fully paid, for the unresolved legal matters concerning Lot No. 6651 and Lot No. 2393-M. Pozon was directed to submit proof of restitution to the Court within ten (10) days of payment.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether Atty. Pozon neglected his client’s legal matters and failed to keep her informed, violating the Code of Professional Responsibility.
What specific violations was Atty. Pozon found guilty of?	Atty. Pozon was found guilty of violating Rules 18.03 and 18.04, Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which pertain to competence, diligence, and communication with clients.
What was the penalty imposed on Atty. Pozon?	Atty. Pozon was suspended from the practice of law for one year and ordered to return PhP 21,000.00 to his client with interest.
Why was only a portion of the paid fees ordered to be returned?	The Court determined that only PhP 21,000.00 was directly tied to unresolved legal matters; other fees were related to cases that had already been resolved.
What is a lawyer’s duty regarding client funds?	A lawyer must account for client funds received for a specific purpose and return any unused funds promptly.
What does Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility require?	Canon 18 mandates that a lawyer serve their client with competence and diligence.
How does this case affect the legal profession?	It reinforces the importance of maintaining client trust, diligently fulfilling duties, and acting with integrity and transparency.
What happens if a lawyer repeats similar misconduct in the future?	The Court warned that any repetition of similar acts would be dealt with more severely in the future.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Sorensen v. Pozon serves as a stern warning to attorneys about the importance of fulfilling their professional responsibilities with diligence and integrity. The ruling highlights the significance of maintaining open communication with clients and ensuring that entrusted legal matters are handled competently. By holding negligent attorneys accountable, the Court reinforces the public’s trust in the legal profession and upholds the standards of ethical conduct.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: JOCELYN SORENSEN, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. FLORITO T. POZON, RESPONDENT., A.C. NO. 11335, January 07, 2019