351 Phil. 915
VITUG, J.:
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.
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 office 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 office 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
sufficiently 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 justified his
failure to represent complainant. The
IBP-CBD, through Commissioner Julio C. Elamparo, recommended to the IBP Board
of Governors the suspension of respondent 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, finding 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 filed 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 findings 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 find out what might have happened to his client's cases. A lawyer's fidelity 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.
Let a copy of
this Resolution be made a part of the personal records of respondent lawyer in
the Office of the Bar Confidant, 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.
[1] Rollo, p.
25.
[2] Ibid., p.
27.
[3] Canon 17, Code of Professional Responsibility.
[4] Canon 18.
[5] Canon 18-04.