See - 9925.pdf
"x x x.
We have held that once a lawyer agrees to handle a case, it is that
lawyer's duty to serve the client with competence and diligence.9
Here, it is beyond doubt that respondent breached his duty to serve
complainant with diligence and neglected a legal matter entrusted to him.
He himself admits that the petition for recognition was not filed, seeks
forgiveness from the Court and promises not to repeat his mistake. 10
Complainant also submitted official letters 11 from the Bureau of Immigration
that indeed no such petition was filed. That Anneth Tan supposedly lost the
petition for recognition and failed to inform respondent cannot absolve hi111
of liability for it was his duty not to neglect complainant's case and handle it
with diligence.
We note that while respondent failed to refund immediately the
amount paid by complainant, he nevertheless exerted earnest efforts that he
eventually was able to fully repay complainant and begged complainant's
forgiveness.
x x x."
