Case Summary (A.C. No. 14203)
Receipts, distributions, and contested amounts
Upon encashment, Atty. Tecson paid each complainant PHP 13,434,196.51 — half of the amount each heir expected (each heir expected PHP 26,868,393.03). A total of PHP 67,170,982.57 representing the other half of the heirs’ aggregate entitlement was not remitted to them; Atty. Tecson admitted retaining PHP 13,434,196.51 as his attorney’s fees and stated that the remaining PHP 67,170,982.57 was given to a third person (a “PR man”) purportedly to facilitate/expedite payment and allegedly, according to the respondent, with the heirs’ conformity.
Respondent’s admissions and explanation
In his brief, Atty. Tecson admitted (a) he received the total just compensation; (b) he suggested engaging a PR man to expedite payment; (c) he disbursed only half of each heir’s share to them; (d) he kept one heir’s share as his attorney’s fee; and (e) he gave the remaining PHP 67,170,982.57 to the PR man. He asserted that the heirs agreed to engage and pay the PR man.
IBP Investigating Commissioner’s findings and recommendation
The IBP Investigating Commissioner found respondent violated Canon III (Fidelity) and the duty to account, noting respondent’s admission that he advised hiring a PR man and handed over the alleged facilitation fee. The IC concluded respondent’s conduct violated his fiduciary duty and recommended disbarment and restitution of PHP 67,170,982.57 with 6% interest per annum until full payment.
IBP Board of Governors’ disposition
The IBP Board of Governors adopted the IC’s recommendation to disbar Atty. Tecson but disapproved the recommendation to require restitution of the PHP 67,170,982.57, accepting the assertion that the amount was given to a third party with the heirs’ knowledge.
Application of the CPRA and constitutional underpinning
The complaint was filed before the CPRA’s effectivity, but the CPRA’s transitory provision permits its application to pending cases unless retroactivity would be infeasible or unjust. The Court applied the CPRA. The Court framed the duty of fidelity under Canon III as inclusive of a lawyer’s obligation to uphold the Constitution and the laws — a principle rooted in the rule of law under the 1987 Constitution — and to assist in the administration of justice rather than seeking or tolerating illicit shortcuts to enforcement.
The duty of fidelity and its contours
The Court explained fidelity does not equate to unqualified loyalty to a client’s wishes; it is fidelity to the rule of law. A lawyer must not counsel or participate in illegal conduct, must advance respect for legal processes, and must act to preserve the integrity of the administration of justice. The Court emphasized that advising clients to bribe or to employ illicit means to circumvent lawful processes is antithetical to Canon III.
Duty to account during engagement (Canon III, Section 49)
Canon III Section 49 requires a lawyer, upon receipt of client funds or property, to immediately account for them, to prepare an inventory, to use entrusted funds only for the client’s declared purpose, and to promptly return any unused portion upon accomplishment of purpose or upon demand. The CPRA expressly tightens the lawyer’s obligations to account both during and after the lawyer‑client relationship.
Presumption of misappropriation and burden of proof
Because the heirs demanded delivery of their full shares and did not consent in the record to the proposed diversion of 50% to a PR man for facilitation or political contributions, the Court held the presumption of misappropriation attached when respondent failed to return the unremitted funds on demand. Under the governing authorities, once misappropriation is presumed, the lawyer bears the burden to prove lawful use of the funds. Atty. Tecson offered only unsubstantiated assertions that the heirs had consented and that the funds had been given to the PR man; he produced no evidence to rebut the presumption.
Rejection of IBP Board’s rationale and duty to return funds regardless of alleged client consent
The Court disagreed with the IBP Board’s acceptance of respondent’s explanation that the heirs had conformed to the payment to the PR man. It held that even if the heirs had purportedly consented, the lawyer’s duty of fidelity and duty to account require the lawyer to ensure client funds are used for lawful purposes; a lawyer may not facilitate illicit expenditures even at a client’s instruction. Consequently, consent does not absolve the lawyer of liability if the use was unlawful or if the lawyer fails to properly account for the funds.
Classification of offenses and applicable sanction
The Court classified respondent’s conduct as serious under Canon VI Section 33: gross misconduct, bribery or corruption, and misappropriation of client funds. Canon VI Section 37 authorizes disbarment among other penalties for serious offenses. The Court found the record supported disbarment, citing relevant precedents in which disbarment was imposed for misappropriation and bribery‑related conduct (cases cited in the Court’s decision).
Court’s orders: disbarment and restitution
The Court found Atty. Tecson guilty of gross misconduct and of misappropriating client funds. It imposed disbarment, ordered his name stricken from the Roll of Attorneys, and directed him to immediately return
...continue readingCase Syllabus (A.C. No. 14203)
Nature of the Case
- Administrative complaint for disbarment filed by Mamerta C. Lizada, Benito Cuizon, Abelardo Cuizon, and Enrique Cuizon (collectively, Lizada et al.) against Atty. Demosthenes S. Tecson (Atty. Tecson).
- Alleged violations: breaches of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA), specifically duties of fidelity and accounting, and misappropriation of client funds in relation to the just compensation awarded in expropriation proceedings.
- Case decided en banc by the Supreme Court, A.C. No. 14203, Decision dated February 18, 2025, per curiam.
Material Parties and Relationships
- Complainants: Mamerta C. Lizada, Benito Cuizon, Abelardo Cuizon, and Enrique Cuizon — legal heirs of the late Spouses Leoncio Cuizon and Mamerta Seno (Spouses Cuizon).
- Respondent: Atty. Demosthenes S. Tecson, counsel engaged by the estate administrator of Spouses Cuizon to represent them in expropriation proceedings.
- Third party referenced: a "PR" man (public relations/facilitation agent) allegedly engaged to expedite payment; also reference to former DOJ Secretary Leila De Lima as a purported recipient of funds in support of her senatorial bid.
Relevant Factual Background
- Spouses Cuizon were registered owners of several parcels of land in Lapu-Lapu City, Cebu totaling 14,161.75 square meters.
- On January 28, 1981, the Export Processing Zone Authority (later renamed Philippine Economic Zone Authority, PEZA) sought expropriation of those parcels to develop an export processing zone in Lapu-Lapu City.
- Spouses Cuizon engaged Atty. Tecson to represent them in the expropriation proceedings.
- On September 24, 2015, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Lapu-Lapu City, Cebu rendered judgment: expropriation proper; just compensation fixed at PHP 2,500.00 per square meter; legal interest of 12% per annum from January 28, 1981 until full payment.
- Computed just compensation including accumulated interest: PHP 134,341,965.15.
- PEZA paid the total just compensation by check on December 23, 2015; the check was received by Atty. Tecson.
Receipt and Disbursement of Funds
- Atty. Tecson received the check representing the total just compensation (PHP 134,341,965.15).
- Atty. Tecson remitted PHP 13,434,196.51 to each complainant (four complainants), totaling PHP 53,736,786.04.
- Lizada et al. expected to receive PHP 26,868,393.03 each (their pro indiviso shares) and were surprised to receive only half that amount.
- Atty. Tecson kept PHP 13,434,196.51 as his attorney's fees.
- The remaining PHP 67,170,982.57, equal to half of the total just compensation, was not remitted to Lizada et al.; Atty. Tecson allegedly told them it would be allotted to former DOJ Secretary Leila De Lima in support of her senatorial bid and later claimed it was given to a PR man as a facilitation fee.
Allegations of Complainants
- Complaint alleges that Atty. Tecson failed to remit to Lizada et al. the amount of PHP 67,170,982.57, representing half of their just compensation.
- Complainants expressed surprise and distress at receiving only PHP 13,434,196.51 each instead of PHP 26,868,393.03 each.
- Complainants assert they asked Atty. Tecson why they received only PHP 13,434,196.51 and were told that Atty. Tecson received the same amount as his attorney's fee and that fifty percent of the payment would be allotted to Leila De Lima for her senatorial bid.
Admissions and Defense by Atty. Tecson
- In his Brief, Atty. Tecson admitted:
- He was engaged by the estate administrator of Spouses Cuizon as counsel in the expropriation proceedings.
- He suggested to Lizada et al. the engagement of a "PR" man to ensure and expedite payment of their just compensation.
- He received PHP 134,341,965.15 and remitted only PHP 13,434,196.51 each to Lizada et al.
- He kept PHP 13,434,196.51 as his legal fees.
- PHP 67,170,982.00 was given to the PR man responsible for the expeditious payment by PEZA (note: source shows PHP 67,170,982.00 in the Brief; the Complaint and other parts show PHP 67,170,982.57).
- In defense, Atty. Tecson averred the engagement of the PR man was with the conformity/consent of Lizada et al.
- In his narrative, Atty. Tecson asserted that complainants "willingly agreed" and "unanimously accepted" the proposal that 50% of PEZA payment be the PR man's compensation, and that he turned over the 50% due the PR man inside the Land Bank office and placed the funds in cartons loaded into his car; these assertions had no documentary proof in the record as noted by the Court.
Procedural and Investigative Findings (IBP)
- Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Investigating Commissioner (IC: Atty. Michael Tito R. Sajor) found:
- Atty. Tecson violated Canon III (Fidelity) of the CPRA.
- His admission that he advised Lizada et al. to hire a PR man and that he handed the supposed "share" or "facilitation fee" to the PR man proved violation of his duty of fidelity.
- He violated his fiduciary duty to account for money belonging to Lizada et al. by failing to return half of the just compensation.
- He failed to timely file his verified answer and position paper, evidencing deliberate failure to respect the law and the tribunal.
- IC recommended disbarment and an order to return PHP 67,170,982.57 to Lizada et al. with 6% interest per annum until fully paid.
- IBP Board