Facts:

The case involves an administrative complaint for disbarment filed by Edmund Balmaceda (complainant) against Atty. Romeo Z. Uson (respondent) for breaching Rules 16 and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The incident occurred in April 2012 when Balmaceda and Carlos Agapito sought legal assistance from Uson regarding an illegal occupation of a property by Balmaceda's brother, Antonio. After the initial consultation, they engaged Uson's services for a fee of ₱75,000, which was fully paid, evidenced by a signed receipt. Despite multiple follow-ups over two years, Uson failed to file an ejectment case against Antonio. In February 2014, Balmaceda sent demand letters requesting a refund of the attorney's fees, which Uson refused. Consequently, Balmaceda filed the disbarment complaint.

In his verified answer, Uson denied the allegations and claimed he had sent a demand letter to Antonio regarding the property. He argued that, upon confronting Antonio about the

...

Facts:

Engagement of Legal Services

• In April 2012, Edmund Balmaceda (complainant) and Carlos Agapito sought legal advice from Atty. Romeo Z. Uson (respondent) regarding the illegal occupation of a property owned by Balmaceda, which he had sold to Agapito.
• They agreed to file an ejectment case against Antonio Balmaceda (the complainant’s brother) and engaged the respondent as their counsel for a fee of P75,000.00, which was paid in full and evidenced by a receipt signed by the respondent.

Failure to File the Ejectment Case

• Despite full payment, the respondent did not file the ejectment case.
• The complainant followed up multiple times, but the respondent repeatedly assured him that he was working on the case.
• Two years passed, and no case was filed.

Demand for Refund

• In February 2014, the complainant sent a demand letter for the return of the P75,000.00 attorney’s fees, but the respondent refused to receive it.
• A second demand letter was sent, but the respondent still refused to refund the amount.
• This led to the filing of a disbarment complaint against the respondent.

Respondent’s Defense

• The respondent claimed that after receiving the fee, he sent a demand letter to Antonio Balmaceda, who then confronted him and threatened legal action, alleging co-ownership of the property.
• The respondent offered to return the P75,000.00, but the complainant refused and insisted on filing the ejectment case.
• The respondent argued that he could not proceed with the case due to the threat of a separate legal action by Antonio and his co-heirs.

Settlement Attempt

• During the preliminary mandatory conference, the respondent offered to return P50,000.00, which the complainant accepted as full settlement.
• Both parties expressed a desire to terminate the case, but the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) required them to submit verified position papers. Only the respondent complied.

Issue:

1. Whether the respondent violated Rules 16 and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility by failing to file the ejectment case despite receiving full payment of attorney’s fees.
2. Whether the respondent’s failure to promptly return the attorney’s fees constitutes a breach of his fiduciary duty.
3. Whether the settlement between the parties absolves the respondent of administrative liability.

---

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)