A.C. No. 5819 - Heirs of Tan, Sr. vs. Beltran

Complainants, the Heirs of Sixto L. Tan, Sr., represented by Recto A. Tan, engaged Atty. Nestor B. Beltran to secure legal redress for their disputed commercial properties valued at approximately P30 million.
An agreement was reached for legal services in return for an attorney’s fee of P200,000.

Complainants filed a criminal action for falsification of public documents and use of falsified documents against Spouses Melanio and Nancy Fernando and Sixto Tan, Jr., docketed as I.S. No. 2001-037.
The case was dismissed by the provincial prosecutor of Albay.
Atty. Beltran was notified of the dismissal order on October 18, 2001.
On November 6, 2001, he filed a Petition for Review before the Secretary of the Department of Justice, but this appeal was filed beyond the 15-day reglementary period.
Consequently, the Secretary of Justice dismissed the belated appeal by Resolution on March 5, 2002, and no motion for reconsideration was subsequently filed by the respondent.

On September 11, 2001, complainants commenced a civil suit to annul the sale of their commercial properties before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Naga City, docketed as Civil Case No. 2001-0329.
Atty. Beltran, after receiving P7,000 from his clients for the payment of docket fees, instructed his secretary to pay the required fees.
A mistake by the Clerk of Court in assessing the docket fees prompted the RTC to order an additional payment, as evidenced in the Order dated May 20, 2002.
Beltran received this Order on May 29, 2002, although he had already moved to withdraw as counsel on May 13, 2002 with his clients’ written conformity.
Importantly, no separate copy of the RTC Order was furnished to the complainants, resulting in a failure to pay the balance and subsequently leading to the dismissal of the civil case.

Belatedly filing an appeal in the criminal action, thereby losing the case.
Failing to inform them of the RTC’s directive to settle the additional docket fees in the civil case.
Unduly receiving P200,000 as attorney’s fees.

The delayed filing was due to his delegation of filing responsibilities to the complainants, who themselves signed and submitted the appeal.
His withdrawal in the civil case absolved him from the duty to notify complainants of the RTC Order.
The claim regarding the receipt of P200,000 was unfounded, admitting only to the receipt of P30,000 for expenses and P7,000 for fees and sundry expenses.

The case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) on March 12, 2003.
The IBP Investigating Commissioner, in a report dated July 24, 2006, found Atty. Beltran guilty of negligence for failing to file the Petition for Review in due time, thus compromising his clients’ criminal case.
With respect to the civil case, the Investigating Commissioner cleared him of liability, noting that his withdrawal was effective.
The report also concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support the claim that respondent received the full P200,000 as attorney’s fees, noting that complainants failed to produce receipts.

Whether Atty. Nestor B. Beltran was negligent in handling the legal matters entrusted to him by filing a belated Petition for Review and consequently causing the dismissal of the criminal case.

Whether his failure to inform the complainants of the RTC Order directing payment of the additional docket fees in Civil Case No. 2001-0329 constitutes a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility and ethical standards.

Whether the allegation that he unduly received P200,000 as attorney’s fees is substantiated by preponderant evidence.