29 Villafuerte v Cortez

7/24/2019 29 Villafuerte v Cortez

1/8

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 theoffice of respondent lawyer to discuss his case for"reconveyance." During their initial meeting, complainanttried to reconstruct before respondent the incidents of thecase merely from memory prompting the latter to ask

complainant to instead return at another time with therecords of the case. Complainant returned but stillwithout the records. He requested respondent to acceptthe case, paying to the latter P1,750.00 representing theacceptance fee of P1,500.00 and P250.00 retainer feefrom January 1987. IDASHa

Complainant never showed up thereafter until November

1989 when he went to the office of respondent but only toleave a copy of a writ of execution in a case forejectment, which, according to respondent, was nevermentioned to him by complainant.

In its report, the Commission on Discipline of the IBP


2/8

concluded that the facts established would indicatesufficiently a case of neglect of duty on the part ofrespondent. It recommended to the IBP Board ofGovernors the suspension of respondent from thepractice of law for three months. AHcDEI

The Court ruled that respondent has been remiss in hisresponsibilities. A lawyer-client relationship has arisenbetween respondent and complainant. His acceptance ofthe payment effectively bars him from altogetherdisclaiming the existence of an attorney-clientrelationship between them. It would seem that

respondent hardly has exerted any effort to find out whatmight have happened to his client's cases.

Respondent is hereby suspended from the practice oflaw for a period of one month from notice hereof, with awarning that a repetition of similar acts will be dealt withmore severely. ESHAIC

SYLLABUS

1. LEGAL ETHICS; LAWYER-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP;GIVEN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, A LAWYER-CLIENTRELATIONSHIP HAS ARISEN BETWEENRESPONDENT AND COMPLAINANT; REASON. TheCourt is convinced that a lawyer-client relationship, giventhe circumstances, has arisen between respondent and

complainant. Respondent lawyer has admitted havingreceived the amount of P1,750.00, including its natureand purpose, from complainant. His acceptance of thepayment effectively bars him from altogether disclaimingthe existence of an attorney-client relationship betweenthem. It would not matter really whether the money has


3/8

been intended to pertain only to Civil Case No. 83-18877or to include Civil Case No. 062160-CV, there being noshowing, in any event, that respondent lawyer hasattended to either of said cases. It would seem that hehardly has exerted any effort to find out what might havehappened to his client's cases. A lawyer's fidelity to thecause of his client requires him to be ever mindful of theresponsibilities that should be expected of him. He ismandated to exert his best efforts to protect, withinbounds of the law, the interests of his client. The Code ofProfessional Responsibility cannot be any clearer in its

dictum than when it has stated that a "lawyer shall servehis client with competence and diligence," decreeingfurther that he "shall not neglect a legal matter entrustedto him."

2. ID.; SUSPENSION; AS PENALTY FOR NEGLECTINGA LEGAL MATTER ENTRUSTED TO HIM. Allconsidered, the Court deems it proper to reduce therecommended period of suspension of the IBP from threemonths to one month. Atty. Dante H. Cortez is herebysuspended from the practice of law for a period of onemonth from notice hereof, with a warning that a repetitionof similar acts and other administrative lapses will bedealt with more severely than presently.

R E S O L U T I O N

VITUG,J p:

Feeling aggrieved by what he perceives to be a neglectin the handling of his cases by respondent lawyer,


4/8

despite the latter's receipt of P1,750.00 acceptance andretainer fees, complainant Arsenio A. Villafuerte seeks, inthe instant proceedings, the disbarment of Atty. Dante H.Cortez. cdasia

From the records of the case and the Report submittedby the Commission on Bar Discipline ("CBD") of theIntegrated Bar of the Philippines ("IBP"), it would appearthat sometime in January 1987, complainant, upon thereferral of Atty. Rene A. V. Saguisag, went to the office ofrespondent lawyer to discuss his case for"reconveyance" (Civil Case No. 83-18877). During their

initial meeting, complainant tried to reconstruct beforerespondent lawyer the incidents of the case merely frommemory prompting the latter to ask complainant toinstead return at another time with the records of thecase. On 30 January 1987, complainant again sawrespondent but still sans the records. Complainantrequested respondent to accept the case, paying to thelatter the sum of P1,750.00 representing the acceptancefee of P1,500.00 and P250.00 retainer fee for January1987. Respondent averred that he accepted the moneywith much reluctance and only upon the condition thatcomplainant would get the records of the case from, aswell 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 office of respondentlawyer but only to leave a copy of a writ of execution inCivil Case No. 062160-CV, a case for ejectment, which,according to respondent, was never priorly mentioned tohim by complainant. Indeed, said respondent, he hadnever entered his appearance in the aforenumbered


5/8

case.

In its report, IBP-CBD concluded that the factsestablished would just the same indicate sufficiently a

case of neglect of duty on the part of respondent. TheCBD rejected the excuse proffered by respondent thatthe non-receipt of the records of the case justified hisfailure to represent complainant. The IBP-CBD, throughCommissioner Julio C. Elamparo, recommended to theIBP Board of Governors the suspension of respondentfrom the practice of law for three months with a warningthat 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 passedResolution No. XII-96-191 which

"RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as itis hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED, theReport and Recommendation of theInvestigating Commissioner in the above-entitled case, hereinmade part of thisResolution/Decision as Annex 'A;' and,finding the recommendation therein to be fullysupported by the evidence on record and theapplicable laws and rules, Respondent Atty.Dante Cortez is hereby SUSPENDED fromthe practice of law for three (3) months with awarning that a repetition of the acts/omission

complained of will be dealt with moreseverely." 1

Both respondent lawyer and complainant filed with theIBP-CBD their respective motions for the reconsiderationof the foregoing resolution.


6/8

On 23 August 1997, the Board of Governors passedResolution No. XII-97-66 that

"RESOLVED to CONFIRM Resolution NO.

XII-96-191 of the Board of GovernorsMeeting dated August 30, 1996SUSPENDING Atty. Dante Cortez from thepractice of law for three (3) months with awarning that repetition of the acts/omissioncomplained of will be dealt with moreseverely." 2

The Court agrees with the IBP-CBD in its findings andconclusion that respondent lawyer has somehow beenremiss in his responsibilities.

The Court is convinced that a lawyer-client relationship,given the circumstances, has arisen between respondentand complainant. Respondent lawyer has admittedhaving received the amount of P1,750.00, including itsnature and purpose, from complainant. His acceptance of

the payment effectively bars him from altogetherdisclaiming the existence of an attorney-clientrelationship between them. It would not matter reallywhether the money has been intended to pertain only toCivil Case No. 83-18877 or to include Civil Case No.062160-CV, there being no showing, in any event, thatrespondent lawyer has attended to either of said cases. Itwould seem that he hardly has exerted any effort to findout what might have happened to his client's cases. Alawyer's fidelity to the cause of his client requires him tobe ever mindful of the responsibilities that should beexpected of him. 3 He is mandated to exert his bestefforts to protect, within the bounds of the law, the


7/8

interests of his client. The Code of ProfessionalResponsibility cannot be any clearer in its dictum thanwhen it has stated that a "lawyer shall serve his clientwith competence and diligence," 4decreeing further thathe "shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him." 5

Complainant, nevertheless, is not entirely without faulthimself. He cannot expect his case to be properly andintelligently handled without listening to his own counseland extending full cooperation to him. It is not right forcomplainant to wait for almost two years and to deal withhis lawyer only after receiving an adverse decision.

All considered, the Court deems it proper to reduce therecommended period of suspension of the IBP from threemonths to one month.

WHEREFORE, Atty. Dante H. Cortez is herebySUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of onemonth from notice hereof, with a warning that a repetition

of similar acts and other administrative lapses will bedealt with more severely than presently.

Let a copy of this Resolution be made a part of thepersonal records of respondent lawyer in the Office of theBar Confidant, Supreme Court of the Philippines, and letcopies thereof be furnished to the Integrated Bar of thePhilippines and be circulated to all courts.

SO ORDERED. cdasia

Davide, Jr., Bellosillo, Panganibanand Quisumbing, JJ .,concur.


8/8

Footnotes

1. Rollo, p. 25.

2. Ibid., p. 27.

3. Canon 17, Code of Professional Responsibility.

4. Canon 18.

5. Canon 18-04.

2012 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. Click herefor our Disclaimer and CopyrightNotice

29 Villafuerte v Cortez

Documents

Transcript of 29 Villafuerte v Cortez