3/30/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly xxxx 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 client's request for information. The relationship between a lawyer and his client is highly fiduciary and prescribes on a lawyer great fidelity and good faith. The highly fiduciary nature of this relationship imposes upon the lawyer the duty to account for the money or property collected or received for or from his client. Thus, a lawyer's failure to return, upon demand, the funds held by him on behalf of his client, as in this case, gives rise to the presumption that he has appropriated the same for his own use, in violation of the trust reposed in him by his client. This act is a gross violation of general morality, as well as of professional ethics.[21] As stressed by this Court in the case of Del Mundo v. Atty. Capistrano,[22] to wit: Moreover, a lawyer is obliged to hold in trust money of his client that may come to his possession. As trustee of such funds, he is bound to keep them separate and apart from his own. Money entrusted to a lawyer for a specific purpose such as for the filing and processing of a case if not utilized, must be returned immediately upon demand. Failure to return gives rise to a presumption that he has misappropriated it in violation of the trust reposed on him. And the conversion of funds entrusted to him constitutes gross violation of professional ethics and betrayal of public confidence in the legal profession.[23] Complainant was able to establish that Atty. Doctor received from him the amounts of P400,000.00 on June 8, 2011, another P400,000.00 on June 21, 2011, and US$50,000.00 on June 21, 2011. She submitted the Joint Affidavit[24] of Evangeline and Kevin, who accompanied her during those dates and witnessed the act of receipt of said amounts by Atty. Doctor from complainant. However, Atty. Doctor failed to issue official receipts despite assurances to do so. Moreover, Atty. Doctor failed to use the money for the intended purpose, i.e.: (1) as settlement for the Taiwanese crew members to be cleared by the BID; (2) for the immediate release of the vessel from the custody of the BFAR; and (3) for the termination of the B FAR administrative case. Atty. Doctor should have properly accounted for said amounts and immediately returned the money to complainant when he failed to use the same. If he had done so, there would have been no need for complainant to send demand letters to him.[25] Another evidence of receipt of money is the fact of partial return on the part of Atty. Doctor. The IBP-CBD found that Atty. Doctor partially returned the amount of US$45,400.00 and has a remaining balance to be accounted for in favor of complainant in the amount of P800,000.00 and US$4,600.00.[26] https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66125 5/9