FIRST DIVISION

[A.C. No. 3455. April 14, 1998.]

ARSENIO A. VILLAFUERTE , complainant, vs . ATTY. DANTE H. CORTEZ ,

respondent.

Public Attorney's Office for petitioner.

Atty. Elias I. de los Reyes for respondent.

SYNOPSIS

Sometime in January 1987, complainant went to the o ce of respondent lawyer to

discuss his case for "reconveyance." During their initial meeting, complainant tried to
reconstruct before respondent the incidents of the case merely from memory prompting
the latter to ask complainant to instead return at another time with the records of the case.
Complainant returned but still without the records. He requested respondent to accept the
case, paying to the latter P1,750.00 representing the acceptance fee of P1,500.00 and
P250.00 retainer fee from January 1987. IDASHa

Complainant never showed up thereafter until November 1989 when he went to the
o ce of respondent but only to leave a copy of a writ of execution in a case for ejectment,
which, according to respondent, was never mentioned to him by complainant.
In its report, the Commission on Discipline of the IBP concluded that the facts
established would indicate su ciently a case of neglect of duty on the part of respondent.
It recommended to the IBP Board of Governors the suspension of respondent from the
practice of law for three months. AHcDEI

The Court ruled that respondent has been remiss in his responsibilities. A lawyer-
client relationship has arisen between respondent and complainant. His acceptance of the
payment effectively bars him from altogether disclaiming the existence of an attorney-
client relationship between them. It would seem that respondent hardly has exerted any
effort to find out what might have happened to his client's cases.
Respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of law for a period of one month
from notice hereof, with a warning that a repetition of similar acts will be dealt with more
severely. ESHAIC

SYLLABUS

1. LEGAL ETHICS; LAWYER-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP; GIVEN THE CIRCUMSTANCES,

A LAWYER-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP HAS ARISEN BETWEEN RESPONDENT AND
COMPLAINANT; REASON. — The Court is convinced that a lawyer-client relationship, given
the circumstances, has arisen between respondent and complainant. Respondent lawyer
has admitted having received the amount of P1,750.00, including its nature and purpose,
from complainant. His acceptance of the payment effectively bars him from altogether
disclaiming the existence of an attorney-client relationship between them. It would not
matter really whether the money has been intended to pertain only to Civil Case No. 83-
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 18877 or to include Civil Case No. 062160-CV, there being no showing, in any event, that
respondent lawyer has attended to either of said cases. It would seem that he hardly has
exerted any effort to nd out what might have happened to his client's cases. A lawyer's
delity to the cause of his client requires him to be ever mindful of the responsibilities that
should be expected of him. He is mandated to exert his best efforts to protect, within
bounds of the law, the interests of his client. The Code of Professional Responsibility
cannot be any clearer in its dictum than when it has stated that a "lawyer shall serve his
client with competence and diligence," decreeing further that he "shall not neglect a legal
matter entrusted to him."
2. ID.; SUSPENSION; AS PENALTY FOR NEGLECTING A LEGAL MATTER ENTRUSTED
TO HIM. — All considered, the Court deems it proper to reduce the recommended period
of suspension of the IBP from three months to one month. Atty. Dante H. Cortez is hereby
suspended from the practice of law for a period of one month from notice hereof, with a
warning that a repetition of similar acts and other administrative lapses will be dealt with
more severely than presently.

RESOLUTION

VITUG , J : p

Feeling aggrieved by what he perceives to be a neglect in the handling of his cases

by respondent lawyer, despite the latter's receipt of P1,750.00 acceptance and retainer
fees, complainant Arsenio A. Villafuerte seeks, in the instant proceedings, the disbarment
of Atty. Dante H. Cortez. cdasia

From the records of the case and the Report submitted by the Commission on Bar
Discipline ("CBD") of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines ("IBP"), it would appear that
sometime in January 1987, complainant, upon the referral of Atty. Rene A. V. Saguisag,
went to the o ce of respondent lawyer to discuss his case for "reconveyance" (Civil Case
No. 83-18877). During their initial meeting, complainant tried to reconstruct before
respondent lawyer the incidents of the case merely from memory prompting the latter to
ask complainant to instead return at another time with the records of the case. On 30
January 1987, complainant again saw respondent but still sans the records. Complainant
requested respondent to accept the case, paying to the latter the sum of P1,750.00
representing the acceptance fee of P1,500.00 and P250.00 retainer fee for January 1987.
Respondent averred that he accepted the money with much reluctance and only upon the
condition that complainant would get the records of the case from, as well as secure the
withdrawal of appearance of, Atty. Jose Dizon, the former counsel of complainant.
Allegedly, complainant never showed up thereafter until November 1989 when he went to
the o ce of respondent lawyer but only to leave a copy of a writ of execution in Civil Case
No. 062160-CV, a case for ejectment, which, according to respondent, was never priorly
mentioned to him by complainant. Indeed, said respondent, he had never entered his
appearance in the aforenumbered case.
In its report, IBP-CBD concluded that the facts established would just the same
indicate su ciently a case of neglect of duty on the part of respondent. The CBD rejected
the excuse proffered by respondent that the non-receipt of the records of the case
justi ed his failure to represent complainant. The IBP-CBD, through Commissioner Julio C.
Elamparo, recommended to the IBP Board of Governors the suspension of respondent
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 from the practice of law for three months with a warning that a repetition of similar acts
could be dealt with more severely than a mere 3-month suspension.
On 30 August 1996, the IBP Board of Governors passed Resolution No. XII-96-191
which —
"RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED and
APPROVED, the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner
in the above-entitled case, hereinmade part of this Resolution/Decision as Annex
'A;' and, nding the recommendation therein to be fully supported by the evidence
on record and the applicable laws and rules, Respondent Atty. Dante Cortez is
hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for three (3) months with a warning
that a repetition of the acts/omission complained of will be dealt with more
severely." 1

Both respondent lawyer and complainant led with the IBP-CBD their respective
motions for the reconsideration of the foregoing resolution.
On 23 August 1997, the Board of Governors passed Resolution No. XII-97-66 that —
"RESOLVED to CONFIRM Resolution NO. XII-96-191 of the Board of
Governors Meeting dated August 30, 1996 SUSPENDING Atty. Dante Cortez from
the practice of law for three (3) months with a warning that repetition of the
acts/omission complained of will be dealt with more severely." 2

The Court agrees with the IBP-CBD in its ndings and conclusion that respondent
lawyer has somehow been remiss in his responsibilities.
The Court is convinced that a lawyer-client relationship, given the circumstances, has
arisen between respondent and complainant. Respondent lawyer has admitted having
received the amount of P1,750.00, including its nature and purpose, from complainant. His
acceptance of the payment effectively bars him from altogether disclaiming the existence
of an attorney-client relationship between them. It would not matter really whether the
money has been intended to pertain only to Civil Case No. 83-18877 or to include Civil
Case No. 062160-CV, there being no showing, in any event, that respondent lawyer has
attended to either of said cases. It would seem that he hardly has exerted any effort to nd
out what might have happened to his client's cases. A lawyer's delity to the cause of his
client requires him to be ever mindful of the responsibilities that should be expected of
him. 3 He is mandated to exert his best efforts to protect, within the bounds of the law, the
interests of his client. The Code of Professional Responsibility cannot be any clearer in its
dictum than when it has stated that a "lawyer shall serve his client with competence and
diligence," 4 decreeing further that he "shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him." 5
Complainant, nevertheless, is not entirely without fault himself. He cannot expect his
case to be properly and intelligently handled without listening to his own counsel and
extending full cooperation to him. It is not right for complainant to wait for almost two
years and to deal with his lawyer only after receiving an adverse decision.
All considered, the Court deems it proper to reduce the recommended period of
suspension of the IBP from three months to one month.
WHEREFORE, Atty. Dante H. Cortez is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law
for a period of one month from notice hereof, with a warning that a repetition of similar
acts and other administrative lapses will be dealt with more severely than presently.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com

 Let a copy of this Resolution be made a part of the personal records of respondent
lawyer in the O ce of the Bar Con dant, Supreme Court of the Philippines, and let copies
thereof be furnished to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and be circulated to all courts.
SO ORDERED. cdasia

Davide, Jr., Bellosillo, Panganiban and Quisumbing, JJ ., concur.

Footnotes
1. Rollo, p. 25.
2. Ibid., p. 27.

3. Canon 17, Code of Professional Responsibility.

4. Canon 18.

5. Canon 18-04.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com