4/14/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Complainant has yet to pay him a single centavo from the time complainant engaged his services. He continuously sent complainant billing statements but complainant refused to settle them. He, nevertheless, handled complainant's case with utmost effort and within the bounds of law and human decency. He was surprised to have received a letter from complainant demanding the sum of US$90,000.00, equivalent to the disability benefits he was claiming. As a lawyer though, he could have never insured the success of complainant's case. At any rate, he filed all the necessary pleadings and raised sound arguments at every stage of the proceedings. His alleged incompetence did not lead to the dismissal of the petition. It only pertained to deficiencies in form which he was able to rectify though a "Verified Compliance and Statement of Material Dates." The Court could have just dismissed the case outright based on the deficiencies but the Court did not. It instead ordered respondent to file a compliance, which he did. The truth is complainant's Certification of Fitness to Work dated June 17, 2003 which he himself executed made it difficult to convince the Court of Appeals and eventually, the Supreme Court to give due course to complainant's claim for total and permanent disability benefits. More, PTC was able to establish that at the time complainant was claiming total and permanent disability benefits, he was employed as training director in anothe1 shipping agency. Report and Recommendation of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP - CBD) In its Report and Recommendation[2] dated July 21, 2011, the IBP-CBD recommended that respondent be meted the penalty of censure with warning that a repetition of the same will be dealt with more severely. It held that respondent had exerted ordinary diligence in handling complainant's case, but had been remiss in his duty to promptly inform his client of the denial of his petition. He had the obligation to discuss the results of the case with his client. For until his retirement from the case is made of record, a lawyer continues to assume professional responsibility and any perceived difficulty in discharging his duties does not excuse him from performing it. Resolutions of the IBP - Board of Governors (BOG) By Resolution[3] dated March 20, 2013, the IBP Board of Governor affirmed. Respondent's motion for reconsideration[4] was denied under Resolution[5] dated April 20, 2017 for lack of any new argument which could have entailed a reversal of its findings. Complainant's own motion for reconsideration,[6] too, was denied under Resolution[7] dated February 16, 2019. Per verification, no motion for reconsideration or petition for review was filed by either party as of October 22, 2019.[8] Nevertheless, the IBP elevated the entire case records to the Court since the IBP Resolution is merely recommendatory in nature and does not attain finality without the Court's imprimatur. Issue https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66208 3/10