Case Digest (A.C. No. 5996)
Facts:
In the case of Mario S. Amaya vs. Atty. Delano A. Tecson, the complainant, Mario S. Amaya, filed a complaint for disbarment against Atty. Delano A. Tecson on March 20, 2003. The events leading to this complaint began when Amaya retained Tecson's services to handle an appeal with the Court of Appeals after his previous counsel suffered a stroke. Tecson initially demanded a fee of P20,000.00 for filing the notice of appeal, which Amaya paid promptly. Subsequently, Tecson requested an additional P20,000.00 for the preparation and filing of the appellant's brief, which Amaya also paid on March 24, 2001. Throughout the process, Amaya frequently visited Tecson's office to inquire about the appeal's progress, receiving assurances that it would be filed on time. However, in early December 2001, Tecson informed Amaya that the appeal had been dismissed due to a late filing, claiming that the post office's closure on weekends contributed to the delay. Tecson assured ...
Case Digest (A.C. No. 5996)
Facts:
Retention of Services
- Mario S. Amaya (complainant) retained the services of Atty. Delano A. Tecson (respondent) to handle an appeal before the Court of Appeals after his former counsel suffered a stroke.
- The respondent demanded and received P20,000.00 for filing the notice of appeal and an additional P20,000.00 for preparing and filing the appellant’s brief.
Failure to File Appeal on Time
- The respondent assured the complainant that the appeal would be filed on time. However, the appeal was dismissed because the respondent failed to file it one day late.
- The respondent blamed the dismissal on the Court of Appeals’ alleged mistake, claiming the post office was closed on weekends, preventing him from filing on time.
Demand for Additional Payment
- The respondent demanded and received P10,000.00 from the complainant to file a motion for reconsideration, promising to personally follow up the case in Manila.
- The complainant later discovered that the motion for reconsideration was denied and that the respondent was unreachable.
Hiring of New Counsel
- The complainant hired another lawyer, Atty. Arsenio C. Tan, who filed a second motion for reconsideration, which was also denied.
Respondent’s Defense
- The respondent admitted that the appeal was dismissed due to his failure to pay the docket fees on time. He claimed that he attempted to pay the fees via money order but was unable to do so because the post office refused his transaction after 4:30 p.m.
- He denied receiving the additional P10,000.00 and claimed that he returned the P40,000.00 to the complainant after the appeal failed.
Issue:
- (Unlock)
Ruling:
- (Unlock)
Ratio:
- Duty of Diligence: A lawyer owes a duty of competence and diligence to their client. The respondent’s failure to file the appeal and motion for reconsideration on time constituted gross negligence.
- Attorney-Client Relationship: Acceptance of money from a client establishes an attorney-client relationship, imposing a duty of fidelity to the client’s cause. The respondent’s actions breached this duty.
- Disciplinary Action: While disbarment is the most severe form of disciplinary action, it is not warranted in this case. The respondent’s return of the P40,000.00 to the complainant and his candid assessment of the case’s difficulty mitigated the severity of his misconduct. A reprimand was deemed sufficient.