G.R. No. A.C. No. 8085. December 1, 2014.
Felipe Layos, Complainant, vs. Atty. Marlito I. Villanueva, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Felipe Layos charged respondent Atty. Marlito I. Villanueva with violating the Code of Professional Responsibility and the lawyer’s oath for neglecting his client’s interests. Respondent was the counsel of record in Criminal Case No. 7367-B. His constant failure to appear at hearings led the Regional Trial Court (RTC) to issue an Order dated June 26, 2003, waiving the defense’s right to cross-examine a prosecution witness. Despite this order, respondent remained absent. Complainant, through respondent, filed a motion for reconsideration only on April 21, 2007—four years later—which was denied. A subsequent petition for certiorari filed with the Court of Appeals (CA) was dismissed. The CA, in its Decision dated November 6, 2008, criticized respondent for his “lack of candidness and fervor” in championing his client’s cause, noting he never inquired about hearings he missed, took an inordinate time to seek reconsideration, and never questioned the appearances of other lawyers for his client during his absences. Based on this CA disquisition, complainant filed the present administrative case.
In his defense, respondent claimed his car broke down on April 4, 2002, preventing his court attendance. He assumed the case was amicably settled and dismissed after that, stating he received no further notices from the RTC until sometime before November 15, 2005. Upon attending a hearing then, he learned of the June 26, 2003 Order and that other lawyers were appearing for complainant. He attempted to secure a copy of the order but relied on court personnel’s promise to mail it, which they failed to do. He finally obtained a copy on April 4, 2006, and filed the motion for reconsideration on April 21, 2007. Respondent also averred he had difficulty locating complainant, who failed to pay agreed fees, and that he advanced case expenses.
The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Commissioner found respondent administratively liable for failing to serve his client’s interests with competence and diligence, recommending a six-month suspension from the practice of law. The IBP Board of Governors unanimously adopted this recommendation. Respondent’s motion for reconsideration was denied.

ISSUE

Whether or not respondent should be held administratively liable for the acts complained of.

RULING

Yes, respondent is administratively liable. The Court concurs with the IBP’s findings but modifies the penalty.
Respondent violated Canon 17 and Canon 18, Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which require a lawyer to serve a client’s interests with fidelity, competence, diligence, and to keep the client informed. After missing the April 4, 2002 hearing, respondent neglected the case, merely assuming it was settled. Upon discovering the prejudicial June 26, 2003 Order in November 2005, he did not promptly act. He passively relied on court personnel to provide a copy and, after securing it on April 4, 2006, waited over a year until April 21, 2007, to file a motion for reconsideration, which was denied as out of time. This demonstrated a failure to exercise the requisite skill, care, and diligence.
However, the Court reduced the recommended suspension from six months to three months, considering the complainant’s contributory fault. Complainant showed disinterest by not communicating with respondent, engaging other lawyers without informing his counsel of record, and being indifferent to a warrant of arrest. Citing analogous cases (Venterez v. Atty. Cosme and Somosot v. Atty. Lara), where penalties were reduced due to clients’ contributory faults, a three-month suspension was deemed commensurate.
Respondent Atty. Marlito I. Villanueva is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for three (3) months, effective from the finality of the Resolution, and STERNLY WARNED that a repetition will be dealt with more severely.