AC 3455; (April, 1998) (Digest)
G.R. No. A.C. No. 3455. April 14, 1998.
Arsenio A. Villafuerte, complainant, vs. Atty. Dante H. Cortez, respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Arsenio A. Villafuerte engaged the services of respondent Atty. Dante H. Cortez in January 1987 for a reconveyance case (Civil Case No. 83-18877), upon the referral of Atty. Rene A.V. Saguisag. During their initial meetings, complainant failed to bring the case records. On January 30, 1987, complainant paid respondent P1,750.00 as an acceptance fee (P1,500.00) and a retainer fee for January 1987 (P250.00). Respondent accepted the payment but conditioned his engagement on complainant securing the case records and the withdrawal of appearance of his former counsel, Atty. Jose Dizon. Complainant did not return until November 1989, when he left a copy of a writ of execution in a different ejectment case (Civil Case No. 062160-CV), which respondent claimed was never previously mentioned to him. Respondent did not enter his appearance in either case. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) found respondent negligent in his duties and recommended a three-month suspension. The IBP Board of Governors adopted this recommendation. Both parties filed motions for reconsideration, which the Board denied, confirming the suspension.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Atty. Dante H. Cortez is administratively liable for neglect of duty in handling the legal matters entrusted to him by complainant.
RULING
Yes, respondent is administratively liable for neglect of duty. The Supreme Court found that a lawyer-client relationship was established when respondent accepted the P1,750.00 fee from complainant. This acceptance precludes him from disclaiming the relationship. Respondent failed to exert any effort to protect his client’s interests in either the reconveyance or the ejectment case, violating his duty to serve his client with competence and diligence under the Code of Professional Responsibility (Canons 17 and 18). However, the Court also noted that complainant was partly at fault for not cooperating fully with his counsel and waiting nearly two years before following up. Considering these circumstances, the Court reduced the recommended suspension from three months to one month. Respondent Atty. Dante H. Cortez is suspended from the practice of law for one month, with a warning that a repetition of similar acts will be dealt with more severely.