A.C. No. 12446 - Taghoy vs. Tecson III

In 2006, the complainants engaged Atty. Constantine Tecson III for legal representation in an ejectment case filed against them by a certain Rayos.
The complainants paid Atty. Tecson an initial fee of P5,000.00 for the filing of a motion for reconsideration.
Upon evaluating the case, Atty. Tecson opined that Rayos’ transfer certificate of title (TCT) was questionable and advised the filing of a separate case to annul the title.
The complainants agreed, subsequently paying a total of P71,000.00 (received in installments of varying amounts) as partial payment for his professional services in connection with the annulment proceeding.

Despite his assurances that necessary pleadings would be filed, Atty. Tecson failed to file the complainants’ position paper in the ejectment case as ordered by the court.
He also neglected to file the appeal memorandum, which directly contributed to the dismissal of the complainants’ appeal in the ejectment case.
Moreover, Atty. Tecson did not file the separate case for the annulment of the TCT, even after receiving his professional fees.

The complainants, dissatisfied with Atty. Tecson’s non-performance and subsequent refusal to refund the fees, initiated disbarment proceedings against him.
The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) conducted an investigation and found that Atty. Tecson had violated Canon 18 and Rules 18.01, 18.02, 18.03, and 18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) by neglecting his client’s cause.
The IBP-CBD initially recommended a suspension of one (1) year along with an order to refund the P76,000.00 paid by the complainants.
The IBP Board of Governors, on September 27, 2014, adopted the recommendation but modified the penalty to a two (2) year suspension and ordered the refund.
On motion for reconsideration, Atty. Tecson claimed to have “patched-up” with the complainants by returning the P76,000.00, and contended that his professional service was limited to the annulment case, not extending to the ejectment case.
He also cited his heavy workload and personal problems as reasons for his inability to file the necessary pleadings.
On August 31, 2017, the IBP Board of Governors partly granted his motion, reducing the suspension to one (1) year and deleting the order to return the fees after confirming that refund had been effected.
The records of the case were eventually transmitted to the reviewing court for further determination.

Whether Atty. Tecson’s failure to file essential pleadings in both the ejectment and annulment cases constitutes a breach of his duty to serve his clients with competence and diligence.
Whether the excuses of workload and personal problems presented by Atty. Tecson are sufficient to mitigate his negligence in neglecting his client’s cause.
Whether the administrative sanctions imposed, after weighing the mitigating circumstances such as the voluntary refund, are commensurate to the gravity of the infractions committed.