Facts:

The cases arising from A.C. No. 11334 and A.C. No. 11335 involve respondent Atty. Florito T. Pozon and complainant Jocelyn Sorensen. Jocelyn Sorensen retained Atty. Pozon's services beginning in 1995 for various legal matters primarily related to the reconstitution and securing of land titles in Pangan-an, Lapu-Lapu City. Specifically, she paid Atty. Pozon a total of Seventy-Two Thousand Pesos (PhP 72,000.00) across four engagements, which included matters concerning Lot No. 6662 (1995), Lot No. 6659 (1996), Lot No. 6651 (2000), and Lot No. 2393-M (2003). By 2011, Sorensen filed complaints against him due to his negligence in handling her cases, notably for failing to inform her about their progress. Atty. Pozon acknowledged the payments and defended himself by citing difficulties in settling some of the cases, however, the Commission on Bar Discipline stated that his inaction over eight years constituted a violation of Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of the Code o

...

Facts:

Engagement of Legal Services

• In 1995, complainant Jocelyn Sorensen engaged respondent Atty. Florito T. Pozon for the reconstitution of the title of Lot No. 6662 in Pangan-an, Lapu-Lapu City for the sum of PhP 10,000.00.
• In 1996, complainant again retained respondent’s services to file a petition for the issuance of a new owner’s copy of the title of Lot No. 6659 in Pangan-an, Lapu-Lapu City for PhP 15,000.00.
• In 2000, complainant engaged respondent for securing the title of Lot No. 6651 in Pangan-an, Lapu-Lapu City for PhP 15,000.00.
• In 2003, complainant once more engaged respondent, this time as her counsel for securing the title of Lot No. 2393-M in Yati, Liloan, Cebu for PhP 24,000.00.

Allegations and Filing of Complaint

• In 2011, complainant filed a verified complaint against respondent with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD Case Nos. 11-3151 and 11-3182).
• The complaint charged respondent with continuous negligence in handling the legal matters entrusted to him and his failure to keep the client informed of any progress—alleged violations of Rules 18.03 and 18.04, Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
• Complainant alleged that despite paying a total of PhP 72,000.00, the legal matters remained unresolved.

Documentary Evidence Submitted

• Complainant attached several pieces of evidence including acknowledgement receipts and checks reflecting deposits and payments for the various lots.
• These documents were meant to substantiate the amounts paid and the timeline of the legal transactions.

Respondent’s Defense and Explanation

• Respondent admitted to being the legal counsel for the matters involving complainant’s lots.
• For the 1995 Lot No. 6662 case, he explained that the acceptance fee was received in several installments, while noting that for the 1996 case, complications arose due to a criminal action and subsequent amicable settlement.
• In the 2000 case concerning Lot No. 6651, respondent attributed delays to complainant’s refusal to shoulder his travel expenses to the Land Registration Office.
• For the 2003 case (Lot No. 2393-M), the delay was ascribed to complainant’s inability to provide witnesses to prove ownership predating 1940.

Commission’s Reports and Recommendations

• In a Report and Recommendation dated 18 June 2013 (for CBD Case No. 11-3151), the Commission found respondent guilty of neglect and recommended admonishment and a full refund of PhP 72,000.00, noting his failure to inform the client.
• A subsequent Report and Recommendation on 2 February 2015 (under CBD Case No. 11-3182) recommended a three-month suspension and partial reimbursement of PhP 21,000.00, reflecting the adjusted accounting of funds related to each lot.

Resolution by the Board of Governors of the IBP

• On 5 June 2015, the Board of Governors of the IBP adopted and modified the Commission’s Reports and Recommendations.
• The Resolution imposed a suspension from the practice of law for one (1) year on respondent and ordered him to return PhP 21,000.00 to the complainant.
• The decision consolidated the cases against respondent due to the similar issues and parties involved.

Issue:

Whether respondent Atty. Florito T. Pozon was indeed negligent in handling the legal matters entrusted to him by his client, Jocelyn Sorensen.

• Whether his failure to secure timely and effective resolution of the cases constituted a violation of his professional duty under Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
• Whether respondent’s inaction, including failure to inform the complainant of case progress and to address administrative follow-ups, justifies the penalties imposed.
• Whether the partial reimbursement of PhP 21,000.00 was adequate considering the payments made and services rendered.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)