Amaya vs. Tecson

SECOND DIVISION
[A.C. No. 5996. February 07, 2005]
MARIO S. AMAYA, complainant, vs. ATTY. DELANO A.

TECSON, respondent.
DECISION
CALLEJO, SR., J.:
In a Complaint dated March 20, 2003, Mario S. Amaya sought the

disbarment of Atty. Delano A. Tecson for highly irregular actuations and/or
grave negligence in handling an appeal with the Court of Appeals.
The complainant alleged that he retained the services of the respondent
to handle the said appeal when his former counsel suffered a stroke due to
acute hypertension. The respondent demanded P20,000.00[1] for the filing of
the notice of appeal, which the complainant immediately paid. The
respondent assured him that the appeal was going to be filed on time, and
demanded an additional sum of P20,000.00 for the preparation and filing of
the appellants brief. The complainant paid the said amount on March 24,
2001.[2] The complainant further alleged as follows:
I periodically visited Atty. Tecson in his office to follow up the
progress of the appeal with the Honorable Court of Appeals. During my
earlier visits, I was assured by Atty. Tecson that our appeal will be given due
course. However, sometime in the first week of December 2001, I was
informed by Atty. Tecson that the appeal was dismissed due to the fact
that [he] failed to file it one day late. I was shocked because I was so
diligent in paying Atty. Tecson and also in following up with him the progress
of the appeal. When I asked Atty. Tecson why he was not able to file on
time the Notice of Appeal, [he] merely replied that the Honorable Court of
Appeals committed a mistake in dismissing the appeal because it failed to
consider the inability to file the appeal due to the fact that the post office was
closed on Saturday and Sundays. Atty. Tecson assured me that the appeal
would be resurrected once a Motion for Reconsideration would be filed by
him. Thus, Atty. Tecson told me that he would file a motion for
reconsideration and would go to Manila to personally follow it up. Atty.
Tecson demanded from me the sum of TEN THOUSAND (P10,000.00)
PESOS for the said motion for reconsideration. I readily paid Atty. Tecson,
but unfortunately, I did not anymore demand for a receipt.[3]
The complainant narrated that he was no longer able to personally talk to

the respondent after this, and that the latter was always out of town,
attending to several court hearings in different cities and municipalities and
could not even be reached through his cellular phone.
On May 10, 2002, the complainant learned of the denial of the motion for
reconsideration through a friend. He tried contacting the respondent, to no
avail, and was constrained to hire another lawyer, Atty. Arsenio C. Tan. Atty.
Tan then filed a Notice of Appearance and Second Motion for Reconsideration
which was denied by the appellate court in a Resolution dated October 16,
2002.
In his Comment dated June 23, 2003, the respondent admitted that he
was the complainants counsel and that the appeal was dismiss because he
failed to file the docket fees on time. He then filed a motion for
reconsideration of the said denial, which the appellate court, likewise, denied.
According to the respondent, the complainants case was initially handled
by a different lawyer and was adversely decided by the trial court. The
complainant, who was cocksure of winning his appeal before the Court of
Appeals, approached the respondent regarding the said case. According to
the respondent:
I told him that I would do my best to help him in his appeal but
considering that the records of his case with the RTC, Cebu, was so
voluminous, I had to study them well, because he might be filing an appeal
which would just entail a big expense on his part, without any chance of
having the adverse decision reversed by the appellate court;
There were very few more days left before the notice of appeal could
be filed within the 15-day reglementary period when he approached me.[4]
The respondent further narrated that the last day for paying the docket fee
was a Friday, and that he decided to pay the same through money order. He
then went to the customs area at the waterfront in Cebu City, planning to send
the docket fees through mail, addressed to the Clerk of Court of the Regional
Trial Court where the case had been tried. However, the teller refused to
accept the respondents letter with offer to buy the money order for the docket
fees in question. The respondent was told that his transaction could no longer
be accepted because of the new policy that the postal office would no longer
transact any business after 4:30 p.m. The respondent then had a heated
argument with the postal employee, but no one wanted to accept his
transaction. He then went to the other postal offices in the neighboring cities
of Talisay and Mandaue to try his luck, which was an exercise in futility. He
was able to purchase the money order and send the same only the following
Monday.
The respondent, likewise, claimed that there was no agreement as to the
amount of attorneys fees that he would charge, and considered the
complainants case as pro bono. After he told the complainant that it was
customary for the client to spend the expenses in appealing a case and that it
was usually considered as an acceptance fee, the complainant voluntarily
gave him P20,000.00, and added another P20,000.00 three days later.
Contrary to the complainants claim, the respondent did not receive an
additional amount of P10,000.00. He also averred that he promised to return
the money to the complainant in case the appeal would not be successful. He
was true to his word and returned the P40,000.00 to the complainant, as
evidenced by a receipt.[5] The respondent also stressed that he made a candid
and honest opinion of the probable outcome of the case to the complainant,
and informed the latter that it was going to be very hard to win in the appellate
court.
In a Resolution[6] dated August 11, 2003, the case was referred to the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and
recommendation.
In his Position Paper dated May 21, 2004, the complainant reiterated the
allegations in his complaint. He stressed that his appeal before the Court of
Appeals was lost due to the negligence of the respondent, and, as such, the
latter was liable for damages to the complainant.
In his Report dated June 30, 2004, Investigating Commissioner Demaree
J.B. Raval found that the complainants appeal before the Court of Appeals
had, indeed, been lost through the respondents negligence. Thus:
As a lawyer, Atty. Tecson should have been aware of the Rules. His
negligence put to naught the remedies available to his client, that is, the
appeal and the Motion for Reconsideration of the Resolution dated
November 7, 2001.
Atty. Tecson failed to file the corresponding docket fees, which he ought
to know as a pre-requisite for the docketing of the appeal in the Court of
Appeals. He also failed to file on time a motion for reconsideration on the
adverse resolution of the Court of Appeals.
Atty. Tecson even demanded from Complainant an additional amount of
Php10,000.00 and the latter was made to believe that Atty. Tecson would
personally go to Manila to file the said motion for reconsideration which was
already prepared as of December 7, 2001. Yet, Atty. Tecson did not even
see it fit to mail the Motion for Reconsideration immediately after it was
prepared on December 7, 2001. The Motion for Reconsideration reached
the Court of Appeals in Manila only on January 1, 2002, which was already
three (3) weeks after the Motion for Reconsideration was prepared. Clearly,
the Motion for Reconsideration was filed late, and Atty. Tecson had no
plausible explanation for his negligence.
Atty. Tecson had an obligation to the Complainant as regards the
appeal. His gross negligence, committed twice over, was the root cause for
the dismissal of the appeal.[7]
It was recommended that the respondent be reprimanded, having fallen

short of the diligence required of him under the circumstances. The IBP
Commission on Bar Discipline, thereafter, resolved to adopt and approve the
recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner in Resolution No. XVI2004-389 dated July 30, 2004.
The findings of the Investigating Commissioner are well taken.
It is settled that acceptance of money from a client establishes an
attorney-client relationship and gives rise to the similar duty of fidelity to the
clients cause.[8] As we ruled in Perea v. Almadro:[9]
[W]hile a lawyer may decline a person to become a client for valid
reasons, once he agrees to take up the cause of a client, he begins to owe
fidelity to such cause and must always be mindful of the trust and
confidence reposed in him. As a lawyer, he must serve the client with
competence and diligence, and champion the latters cause with wholehearted fidelity, care and devotion. Indeed, he owes entire devotion to the
interest of his client, warm zeal in the maintenance and defense of his
clients rights, and the exertion of his utmost learning and ability to the end
that nothing be taken or withheld from his client, save by the rules of law
legally applied. His client is entitled to the benefit of any and every remedy
and defense that is authorized by the law of the land and he may expect his
lawyer to assert every such remedy or defense.[10]
Indeed, Rule 18.03 enjoins a lawyer not to neglect a legal matter

entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him
liable. A lawyer engaged to represent a client in a case bears the
responsibility of protecting the latters interest with utmost diligence. [11] Thus, it
is the duty of a lawyer to serve his client with competence and diligence and
he should exert his best efforts to protect within the bounds of the law the
interest of his client. [12] 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. [13]
The Court rules that 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.
It must be stressed that disbarment is the most severe form of disciplinary
sanction, and, as such, 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. [14] Considering that
the respondent in this case returned the money for litigation expenses to the
complainant after the denial of the motion for reconsideration, the Court sees
fit to reprimand the respondent for his actuations.
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Delano E. Tecson is adjudged GUILTY of
violating Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and is hereby
REPRIMANDED. He is STERNLY WARNED that similar conduct in the future
shall be dealt with more severely.
Let a copy of this Decision be included in the respondents files which are
with the Office of the Bar Confidant, and circularized to all courts and to the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines.
SO ORDERED.

Amaya vs. Tecson

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Amaya vs. Tecson

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Amaya vs. Tecson

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SECOND DIVISION

[A.C. No. 5996. February 07, 2005]

MARIO S. AMAYA, complainant, vs. ATTY. DELANO A.

In a Complaint dated March 20, 2003, Mario S. Amaya sought the

The complainant narrated that he was no longer able to personally talk to

It was recommended that the respondent be reprimanded, having fallen

Indeed, Rule 18.03 enjoins a lawyer not to neglect a legal matter

You might also like