MARIO S. AMAYA, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. DELANO A. TECSON, RESPONDENT.

Amaya versus Tecson

The Case

This is an administrative case for disbarment filed by Mario S. Amaya against his former counsel, Atty. Delano A. Tecson, arising from the respondent's handling of the complainant's appeal before the Court of Appeals. The complainant charged the respondent with highly irregular actuations and grave negligence after his appeal was lost, and the case matters because it is the Supreme Court's clean statement of a lawyer's duty of diligence under Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and of the measured, cautious way the Court imposes the ultimate penalty of disbarment.

Procedural History

The complainant filed his verified complaint for disbarment dated March 20, 2003. The Supreme Court, in a Resolution dated August 11, 2003, referred the case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for investigation, report, and recommendation. Investigating Commissioner Demaree J.B. Raval submitted his report dated June 30, 2004, finding that the appeal had indeed been lost through the respondent's negligence, and recommending that the respondent be reprimanded. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines Commission on Bar Discipline adopted and approved that recommendation in its resolution dated July 30, 2004. The matter then came before the Supreme Court as an original administrative proceeding, and the Court rendered its decision in February 2005.

Facts

The complainant had lost his case in the Regional Trial Court and wanted to appeal. His former counsel had suffered a stroke due to acute hypertension, so he retained the respondent. The respondent demanded 20,000 pesos for the filing of the notice of appeal, which the complainant immediately paid, and assured him the appeal would be filed on time. The respondent then demanded an additional 20,000 pesos for the preparation and filing of the appellant's brief, and the complainant paid that amount on March 24, 2001.

The complainant periodically visited the respondent's office to follow up, and was repeatedly assured that the appeal would be given due course. Sometime in the first week of December 2001, however, the respondent informed him that the appeal had been dismissed because it was filed one day late. The respondent blamed the appellate court, saying the post office was closed on Saturdays and Sundays, and assured the complainant that a motion for reconsideration would resurrect the appeal. He demanded 10,000 pesos for that motion, which the complainant paid without asking for a receipt. After that, the complainant could no longer reach the respondent, who was always out of town and unreachable even by cellular phone.

On May 10, 2002, the complainant learned through a friend that the motion for reconsideration had been denied. He hired another lawyer, Atty. Arsenio C. Tan, who filed a notice of appearance and a second motion for reconsideration, which the appellate court denied in a resolution dated October 16, 2002. In his comment, the respondent admitted that the appeal was dismissed because he failed to file the docket fees on time. He claimed the last day fell on a Friday, that he tried to pay by money order but the postal teller refused his transaction after 4:30 in the afternoon, and that he tried the postal offices in Talisay and Mandaue without success, so he was able to send the money order only the following Monday. He also claimed there was no agreement on attorney's fees, that he treated the case as pro bono, that the complainant voluntarily gave him 40,000 pesos, that he never received the 10,000 pesos, and that he returned the 40,000 pesos after the motion for reconsideration was denied, as shown by a receipt.

Issues

• Whether or not the respondent is guilty of negligence in handling the complainant's appeal, in violation of Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
• Whether or not the respondent's actuations warrant the severe penalty of disbarment.

Applicable Provisions

Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides:

A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.

This is the exact rule the Court found the respondent to have violated, and it supplies both the standard of conduct and the consequence of liability for neglect.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court ruled that the respondent was indeed negligent. The Investigating Commissioner found that the appeal was lost through the respondent's negligence: he failed to file the docket fees, which he ought to have known is a prerequisite for docketing the appeal, and he failed to file the motion for reconsideration on time. The motion was prepared as of December 7, 2001, yet it reached the Court of Appeals in Manila only on January 1, 2002, three weeks later, and the respondent had no plausible explanation. The Court held that acceptance of money from a client establishes an attorney-client relationship and gives rise to the duty of fidelity to the client's cause. A lawyer must serve the client with competence and diligence, and it is not enough that a practitioner is qualified to handle a legal matter; he is also required to prepare adequately and give the appropriate attention to his legal work. In failing to zealously attend to a legal matter entrusted to him, the respondent failed to live up to the duties and responsibilities of a member of the legal profession.

On the second issue, the Court held that disbarment is the most severe form of disciplinary sanction, and the power to disbar must always be exercised with great caution, for only the most imperative reasons and in clear cases of misconduct affecting the standing and moral character of the lawyer as an officer of the court and a member of the bar. Accordingly, disbarment should not be decreed where any punishment less severe, such as a reprimand, suspension, or fine, would accomplish the end desired. Considering that the respondent returned the money for litigation expenses to the complainant after the denial of the motion for reconsideration, the Court saw fit to reprimand him rather than disbar him.

Doctrine

A Bar candidate should retain these rules. First, acceptance of money from a client establishes an attorney-client relationship and gives rise to the duty of fidelity to the client's cause. Second, under Rule 18.03, a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable; a lawyer engaged to represent a client bears the responsibility of protecting the latter's interest with utmost diligence, and must prepare adequately and give appropriate attention to his legal work. Third, disbarment is the most severe disciplinary sanction and must be exercised with great caution, only for the most imperative reasons and in clear cases of misconduct affecting the lawyer's standing and moral character; it should not be decreed where a reprimand, suspension, or fine would accomplish the end desired.

Disposition

The Court adjudged the respondent guilty of violating Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and reprimanded him, with a stern warning that similar conduct in the future shall be dealt with more severely, and ordered that a copy of the decision be included in his files with the Office of the Bar Confidant and circularized to all courts and to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.

Remember This

Memorize this line: a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable. Examiners like to use this case to test the duty of diligence under Rule 18.03 and the rule that disbarment is imposed only with great caution, where a lesser penalty such as reprimand will suffice.