Pante vs. Tebelin

Factual Background: Engagement, Payments, and Alleged Nonperformance

The complainant alleged that he was introduced to the respondent by his uncle, Mr. Albert Pante, sometime in June 2012, when the complainant needed counsel to file a petition for declaration of nullity of his marriage. Complainant and respondent agreed on a package deal of Two Hundred Thousand Pesos (P200,000.00) covering attorney’s fees and other possible expenses, and they executed an Attorney-Client Agreement on July 13, 2012. On the same day, complainant delivered a down payment of Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00) to the respondent, for which the respondent issued an Acknowledgement Receipt.

Complainant further alleged that shortly thereafter, complainant and respondent went to the house of psychologist Dr. Arnulfo V. Lopez, where complainant gave Dr. Lopez Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00) as down payment for the psychologist’s services. On September 30, 2012, complainant met respondent at the Mall of Asia and was given a copy of the petition for declaration of nullity of marriage. Complainant then paid respondent Nineteen Thousand Pesos (P19,000.00), which respondent acknowledged at the back of the petition’s last page.

On February 11, 2013, complainant made another down payment of Fifty One Thousand Pesos (P51,000.00) while at Luk Yuen restaurant in Cash and Carry Mall, Makati City, and the respondent issued a corresponding Acknowledgement Receipt. Complainant alleged that when he inquired about when the hearing would start and end, respondent instructed him to wait and trust him. Complainant then attempted to contact respondent about the status of the case, but respondent rarely answered.

Discovery of Alleged False Filing Materials and Failure to Communicate

Complainant reportedly inquired personally with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 109 of Pasay City about his case because respondent did not respond to his messages. Complainant learned that the copy of the petition he had received from respondent was “non-existent,” and that the case number listed on it, Civil Case No. R-PSY-12-03988-CV, corresponded to a different case, as stated in a certification issued by the Clerk of Court, Atty. Marivic S. Tibayan.

Complainant continued to be unable to reach respondent. He then asked respondent’s wife to relay his messages. According to complainant, he resorted to threatening respondent with a complaint before the Supreme Court and the IBP, after which respondent responded and begged complainant not to file the complaint because of their children. Complainant decided to give respondent another chance.

Respondent then referred complainant to Atty. Lazaro S. Galindez, Jr., whose signature allegedly appeared on an Ex Parte Motion to Admit Amended Petition. Complainant, however, claimed that he never even met or saw Atty. Galindez. After that, complainant alleged that he never heard from respondent again. He later learned, according to complainant, that respondent also failed to pay the fees for his case despite receiving money for them.

Additional Alleged Misrepresentations Through Borrowing Money from the Client

After seeking help from the Public Attorney’s Office (PAO), which referred the matter to the IBP, complainant and respondent met twice at the IBP. Complainant alleged that respondent executed two promissory notes, and complainant held back from filing a complaint because of those notes.

Complainant further alleged that on February 22, 2014, respondent went to complainant, who was then confined at V. Luna General Hospital, and asked to borrow Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) for his children’s tuition fee. In the same month, respondent allegedly asked for Sixteen Thousand Pesos (P16,000.00) to pay the psychologist. On May 14, 2014, respondent again asked for Sixteen Thousand Pesos (P16,000.00) for supposed publication fees. Complainant alleged he could only give Fourteen Thousand Pesos (P14,000.00) because his savings were running low. Later, complainant reportedly discovered that the respondent did not pay the psychologist, and that complainant had paid only Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00) to People’s Balita for publication.

Complainant last saw and spoke with respondent on February 8, 2017, the hearing day of his case. A few days later, complainant called respondent to ask whether the Formal Offer of Evidence had already been filed. Respondent replied, “buk as alifer submit k na at kakausapin ko si judges at update ko sayo.” Upon verifying the next day, complainant allegedly learned that respondent had not yet submitted anything. Complainant claimed that he never heard from respondent again and had to hire another lawyer, Atty. Rowena C. De Castro-Matira.

Procedural History: Filing of Administrative Complaint and IBP Recommendations

Complainant proceeded with the filing of the administrative case on March 2, 2017. Despite notices sent to respondent, respondent allegedly failed to participate in the proceedings and did not submit a position paper. The IBP Investigating Commissioner, Denise Monina F. Uy, submitted a Report and Recommendation dated June 24, 2019, recommending that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for one (1) year.

The IBP Board of Governors later modified the recommendation. In a Resolution dated December 15, 2019, it resolved to DISBAR respondent, directed that his name be stricken off the Roll of Attorneys, and ordered him to return the amount received from complainant with legal interest. An Extended Resolution dated July 3, 2022 reiterated and adopted the disbarment disposition with the same directives.

Issues Raised and Standard of Proof Applied

The Supreme Court framed the issue as whether the respondent’s acts violated the CPR so as to merit the penalty of disbarment. In resolving the matter, the Court observed that the proper evidentiary threshold in disbarment cases was substantial evidence, defined as the amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion. The Court also emphasized that the burden of proof rested upon the complainant.

The Supreme Court’s Assessment of Substantial Evidence

After reviewing the records, the Court adopted the findings of the IBP and disbarred the respondent. The Court held that complainant proved by substantial evidence that respondent: (a) was engaged as complainant’s lawyer for the case; (b) received from complainant P30,000.00, P19,000.00, and P51,000.00, in total P100,000.00, for the purpose of filing a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage; and (c) furnished complainant with a copy of an alleged petition for declaration of nullity of marriage with case number R-PSY-12-03988, which was later discovered to be “non-existent” as certified by RTC Branch 109 of Pasay City.

The Court found that these circumstances demonstrated that respondent failed to carry out the duties expected of a lawyer and, worse, acted dishonestly in dealing with complainant.

Applicable Ethical Rules Under the CPRA

Although the complaint charged violations of Canons 16, 17, and 18 of the CPR, the Court ruled that counsel’s obligations were governed by the CPRA, which repealed the CPR and applies to all pending cases before the Court, by virtue of the CPRA’s General Provisions, Section 1 (Transitory provision). Accordingly, the Court examined respondent’s conduct under the CPRA’s ethical canons and specific sections cited.

The Court found respondent liable under Canon II (Propriety) for violating Section 1 (Proper conduct) by engaging in dishonest conduct—particularly by giving complainant a fake copy of the petition and assigning a case number that corresponded to a different case, as certified by the RTC. The Court likewise held that respondent violated Canon III (Fidelity) and Canon IV (Competence and Diligence) because respondent did not file the petition despite receiving amounts advanced by complainant for that purpose, and because he failed to update complainant on the case’s status, forcing complainant to inquire directly with RTC Branch 109 and ultimately to hire another lawyer.

Borrowing from a Client During the Relationship

The Court further held that respondent violated Section 52 of Canon III (Fidelity) because respondent borrowed money from complainant even while complainant was confined and recovering at V. Luna General Hospital. The Court emphasized the unexplainable nature of such borrowing because respondent had not yet rendered the legal services for which complainant had previously paid.

Breach of the Lawyer’s Oath and Use of Prior Administrative Liability

The Court also found that respondent failed to abide by the Revised Lawyer’s Oath, particularly the undertaking to do no falsehood and to discharge duties with integrity. The Court noted that the case was not the first administrative complaint against respondent. It observed that respondent had previously been the respondent in Jesus M. Ferrer v. Atty. Jose Allan M. Tebelin, where he was suspended from the practice of law for two (2) months and ordered to return P5,000.00 with legal interest. The Court highlighted that in the prior case, respondent had ignored notices sent by the IBP, and the same was true in the instant case.

The Court stated that in cases with similar factual circumstances, it had deemed it fit to impose disbarment. It also referred to its power to order the return of acceptance fees where the lawyer was negligent in handling a client’s case.

CPRA Sanctions: Serious Offenses, Aggravation, and Penalty

The Court invoked Canon VI (Accountability), Section 33 (Serious offenses), which includes serious dishonesty, fraud, or deceit, including falsification or documents and making untruthful statements, and also includes gross negligence in the performance of duty or conduct that is reckless and inexcusable, resulting in the client being deprived of a day in court. The Court cited Section 37 (Sanctions), under which a serious offense may b