Eusebio, Erlein Raine T.

2014067352
Jocelyn Sorensen v. Atty. Florito T. Pozon
A.C. No. 11334. January 7, 2019
Carpio, Acting C.J.

FACTS:
In 1995, Jocelyn Sorensen engaged Atty. Florito Pozon’ legal services for the reconstitution of a lot
for the sum of ₱10,000. In 1996, Sorensen again engaged legal services for the issuance of a new
owner’s copy of the title of a lot for the sum of ₱15,000. In 2000, Sorensen secured Atty. Pozon’s
services to secure the title of a lot for the sum of ₱15,000. In 2003, Atty. Ponzon was the counsel of
Sorensen in securing a title of a lot for the sum of ₱24,000. In 2011, Sorensen filed a complaint
before IBP against Atty. Ponzon for neglecting to handle Sorensen’s cases or to at least inform him
of the progress of the cases.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Pozon is guilty of neglecting the legal matters entrusted to him buy his client.

RULING:
Yes. A lawyer owes fidelity to his client and must be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in
him. When a lawyer accepts a case, his acceptance is an implied indication that he possesses the
requisite academic learning, skill, and the ability to handle the case. The Court held that Atty. Pozon
neglected the legal matters entrusted to him by Sorensen. Atty. Ponzon’s inaction is a clear violation
of Rules 18.03 and 18.04, Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Court held that
the suspension from the practice of law for one year is sufficient for Atty. Pozon’s misconduct.

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. In the
present case, Atty. Pozon failed to safeguard Sorensen’s interest after the retainer commenced. Atty.
Pozon’s mere acceptance of the money from the client without fulfilling his duties is indicative of
lack of integrity and proprietary.