Case Digest (A.C. No. 13630)
Facts:
Alifer C. Pante v. Atty. Jose Allan M. Tebelin, A.C. No. 13630 (Formerly CBD Case No. 17-5285), June 27, 2023, the Supreme Court En Banc, Per Curiam, concerned an administrative complaint for lawyer misconduct filed by Alifer C. Pante (complainant) against Atty. Jose Allan M. Tebelin (respondent). The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) investigated and recommended discipline, and the matter was brought to the Supreme Court for final disposition.In June 2012 complainant engaged respondent to file a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage. They agreed on a P200,000 package; they executed an Attorney‑Client Agreement on July 13, 2012, and complainant paid respondent P30,000 that day (receipt issued). Complainant also paid P20,000 to a psychologist as a down payment at respondent’s arrangement. On September 30, 2012 complainant received a copy of an alleged Petition and paid P19,000 (acknowledged on the petition). On February 11, 2013 complainant paid another P51,000 (receipt issued). Thereafter respondent became difficult to reach.
Complainant personally inquired at RTC Branch 109, Pasay City, and the clerk certified that the petition copy and case number provided to complainant were non‑existent and the case number belonged to another matter. Respondent intermittently replied only after threats of complaint and referred complainant to another counsel whose signature appeared on an ex parte motion, although complainant never met that counsel. Respondent failed to pay the psychologist and paid only P5,000 for publication; he later borrowed additional sums from complainant (including P50,000 and other amounts in 2014), and complainant gave an additional P14,000. Complainant finally engaged a new counsel and filed an administrative complaint with the IBP on March 2, 2017.
The IBP Investigating Commissioner recommended one‑year suspension (June 24, 2019). The IBP Board of Governors modified that recommend...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did respondent’s acts violate the Code of Professional Responsibility (and its successor, the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability) so as to merit the penalty of di...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)