A.M. No. RTJ-12-2325, A.M. OCA IPI No. 11-3649-RTJ - Office of the Court Administrator vs. Flores

Complainant Lolita R. Martin engaged respondent Atty. Jesus M. Dela Cruz in 2012 for legal services regarding several pending cases.
The cases involved various government agencies, namely:

Complainant paid an acceptance fee of ₱60,000.00 for respondent’s legal services, as evidenced by an Official Receipt dated August 23, 2012.
Complainant also alleged a payment of ₱2,500.00 as a research fee; however, no proof was produced to substantiate this claim.

From December 21, 2012 to February 6, 2013, complainant made several visits to respondent’s office, only to find him absent.
Complainant sent multiple letters and made several phone calls demanding an explanation on the status of her cases and the return of her ₱60,000.00 acceptance fee due to respondent’s failure to perform his legal services.
Respondent repeatedly failed to appear at the scheduled preliminary investigation hearings, notably missing a hearing on January 16, 2013, which eventually required resetting.

Aggrieved by respondent’s inaction and dismissive responses—exemplified by his casual remark regarding hearing times—complainant escalated the matter.
Complainant filed letter-complaints for respondent’s disbarment with the Office of the Ombudsman and the Presidential Action Center.
The Ombudsman and the Presidential Action Center indorsed her complaint to the court for appropriate action.

On January 13, 2014, the court dispensed with respondent’s comment and referred the case to the IBP for further investigation and recommendation.
The IBP conducted a mandatory conference on June 2, 2014, at which only complainant appeared.
Subsequently, the IBP ordered the parties to submit position papers within ten (10) days; again, only complainant complied.

In its Report and Recommendation dated August 18, 2014, the Investigating Commissioner (IC) recommended:

Suspension of respondent from the practice of law for one (1) year.
Return of the ₱60,000.00 acceptance fee with twelve percent (12%) interest per annum.

Failure to render legal services despite receiving an acceptance fee.
Failure to appear at two preliminary investigation hearings before the OCP-QC.
Willful disobedience of court orders to file comments and appear at mandated IBP proceedings.

He was unaware of the administrative case due to absence from the country and misdirected notices.
The discussion during their first meeting involved only six cases, not including the ongoing criminal investigation.
Although he prepared pleadings, he maintained that the acceptance fee is non-refundable; however, he expressed willingness to return the money in installments.

Whether respondent, by failing to perform legal services despite receiving an acceptance fee, is administratively liable under the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).

Did respondent’s failure to appear at scheduled hearings and his neglect in handling the legal matters constitute a violation of Rules 18.03 and 18.04, Canon 18 of the CPR?
Is the retention of the acceptance fee justified in light of his complete lack of service rendered?

Whether the administrative procedures and the sanctions imposed, including suspension and restitution, are proper and proportionate in this case.

Has the IBP followed due process in investigating and deciding on the case?
Are respondent’s defenses—such as his claim regarding the preparation of pleadings and alleged improper notice—sufficient to exonerate him from administrative liability?