DEL MUNDO V. CAPISTRANOA.C. No. 6903; April 16, 2012Perlas-Bernabe, J.:Facts:1. Complainant Suzette Del Mundo (Suzette) filed an administrative complaint for disbarment charging respondent Atty. Arnel Capistrano (Atty. Capistrano) of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility.2. Suzette and Ricky Tuparan engaged the legal services of Atty. Capistrano to handle the judicial declaration of the nullity of their respective marriages allegedly for a fee of P140, 000 each.3. Consequently, a Special Remainder agreement was entered into by and between Suzette and Atty. Capistrano.4. In accordance with their agreement, Suzette gave Atty. Capistrano the total amount of P78, 500.5. For every payment that Suzette made, she would inquire from Atty. Capistrano the status of her case, and in response Atty. Capistrano made her believe that the cases were filed before the RTC of Malabon City.6. However when she verified her case from the Clerk of Court, she discovered that case of Tuparan has been filed, yet no petition has been filed for her. 7. Then, she demanded the refund of P78, 500, but Atty. Capistrano instead offered to return P63, 000. Suzette agreed.8. Atty. Capistrano only returned P5, 000 and thereafter refused to communicate with her.9. In his Comment/ Answer, Atty. Capistrano acknowledged the receipt of P78, 500 and his undertaking to return the sum of P63, 000. He also admitted responsibility for his failure to file Suzettes petition and cited as justification his heavy workload and busy schedule as then City Legal Officer of Manila and lack of funds to immediately refund the money received.10. IBP-CBD, through Commissioner Quisumbing, found that Atty. Capistrano neglected his clients interest by his failure to inform Suzette of the status of her case and to file the agreed petition for declaration of nullity of marriage. 11. He was held guilty of violating Rule 18.03 and Rule 18.04, Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.12. He was recommended the penalty of suspension for 2 years from the practice of law and ordered the return of P140, 000 to Suzette. Later, the IBP Board of Governors reduced the penalty of suspension to 1 year.Issue: WON Atty. Capistrano violated the Code of Professional ResponsibilityHeld: YesRatio:1. Atty. Capistrano committed acts in violation of his sworn duty as a member of the bar.2. In his Manifestation and Petition for Review, he himself admitted liability for his failure to act on Suzettes case as well as to account and return the funds she entrusted to him.3. When a lawyer takes a clients cause, he covenants that he will exercise due diligence in protecting the latters rights.4. His workload does not justify neglect in handling ones case because it is settled that a lawyer must only accept cases as much as he can efficiently handle.5. A lawyer is obliged to hold in trust money of his client, and as a trustee he is bound to keep them separate and apart from his own.6. Failure to return gives rise to the presumption that he has misappropriated it in violation of the trust reposed on him. 7. Thus, this constitutes as gross violation of professional ethics and betrayal of public confidence in the legal profession.8. The Court finds the penalty of 1 year from the practice of law sufficient and finds it proper to modify the amount to be returned to Suzette from P140, 000 to P73, 500.