Villafuerte v CortezFacts:

Complainant Arsenio Villafuerte seeks for the disbarment of Atty. Dante H. Cortez
because he perceived thatthe respondent, Atty. Dante H. Cortez nelected
the handlin of his cases despite receivin ! ",#$%.%%acceptance and retainers
fee.

Complainant &ent to the office of respondent la&yer to discuss his case for
'reconveyance'.

Durin their initial meetin, complainant reconstructed the incidents of the case merely
from memory so therespondent la&yer asked him to return another day &ith the records.

Complainant aain sa& respondent but still

sans
the records.

Complainant re(uested respondent to accept the case, payin the

sum of !",#$%.%% representin theacceptance fee of !",$%%.%% and !)$%.%%
retainer fee.

*espondent averred that he accepted the money reluctance and only upon
the condition that complainant&ould et the records of the case as &ell as
secure the &ithdra&al of appearance of Atty. +ose Dizon, the former counsel of
complainant.

Alleedly, Complainant never sho&ed up thereafter until he &ent to the office of

respondent but only to leave acopy of a &rit of eecution in the civil case, a case for e-
ectment, &hich, accordin to respondent, &as never priorly mentioned to him by
complainant. *espondent said he had never entered his appearance in the case.

/!0C/D concluded that the facts established &ould -ust the same indicate sufficiently a
case of nelect of dutyon the part of respondent. 1he C/D re-ected the ecuse by
respondent that the non0receipt of the records of thecase -ustified his failure to
represent complainant.

1he /!0C/D recommended to the /! /oard of 2overnors the suspension of respondent

from the practice of la& for three months &ith a &arnin

./! /oard of 2overnors approved the decision of the /!0C/D.

/ o t h r e s p o n d e n t l a & ye r a n d c o m p l a i n a n t f i l e d & i t h t h e / ! 0 C / D t h e i r
r e s p e c t i v e m o t i o n s f o r t h e reconsideration.ssue:3hether or not *espondent
4a&yer should be suspended from the practice of la&5 6es.Held:1he Court is convinced
that a la&yer0client relationship has already arisen bet&een respondent and
complainant.His acceptance of the payment effectively bars him
from altoether disclaimin the eistence of an attorney0clientrelationship
bet&een them. t &ould not matter really &hether the money has been intended to
pertain only to Civil Case7o. 890"88## or to include Civil Case 7o. %)"%0CV, there
bein no sho&in, in any event, that respondent la&yer hasattended to either of said
cases. t &ould seem that he hardly has eerted any effort to find out &hat miht have
happenedto his client;s cases. A la&yer;s fidelity to the cause of his client re(uires him to
be ever mindful of the responsibilities thatshould be epected of him. He is mandated to
eert his best efforts to protect, &ithin the bounds of the la&, the interestsof his client.
1he Code of !rofessional *esponsibility has stated that a 'la&yer shall serve his client
&ith competence anddilience< decreein further that he 'shall not nelect a leal
matter entrusted to him.'Complainant, nevertheless, is not entirely &ithout fault himself.
He cannot epect his case to be properly andintelliently handled &ithout
listenin to his o&n counsel and etendin full cooperation to him. t is
not riht for complainant to &ait for almost t&o years and to deal &ith his la&yer only
after receivin an adverse decision. All considered, the Court deems it proper to reduce
the recommended period of suspension of the /! from threemonths to one month.