G.R. No. A.C. No. 12446. November 16, 2020.
ROSALINA TAGHOY, ET AL., COMPLAINANTS, VS. ATTY. CONSTANTINE TECSON III, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

In 2006, complainants engaged the legal services of Atty. Constantine Tecson III for an ejectment case filed against them. They paid him P5,000 to file a motion for reconsideration. Atty. Tecson advised filing a separate case to annul the opposing party’s Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT), to which complainants agreed, paying him a total of P71,000 as partial professional fees by February 2006. Atty. Tecson failed to file the complainants’ position paper and appeal memorandum in the ejectment case, resulting in the dismissal of their appeal. He also did not file the promised annulment of title case. Complainants demanded a refund of the total P76,000 paid, which Atty. Tecson refused, prompting the filing of this disbarment case. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Commission on Bar Discipline found Atty. Tecson liable and recommended a one-year suspension, which the IBP Board of Governors modified to two years with an order to refund the P76,000. Atty. Tecson moved for reconsideration, manifesting that he had “patched-up” with the complainants and voluntarily returned the money, and claimed his service was limited to the annulment case, though he helped in the ejectment case, attributing his failures to workload and personal problems. The IBP Board of Governors partly granted his motion, reducing the suspension to one year and deleting the refund order after finding the amount had been returned.

ISSUE

Whether Atty. Constantine Tecson III is administratively liable for violating the Code of Professional Responsibility.

RULING

Yes, Atty. Constantine Tecson III is administratively liable. The Court adopted the IBP Board of Governors’ findings but modified the penalty. Atty. Tecson violated Canon 17 and Canon 18, Rules 18.01, 18.02, 18.03, and 18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. His failure to file the necessary pleadings in the ejectment case constituted negligence per se under Rule 18.03, breaching his duty of fidelity and diligence to his clients. His excuses of personal problems and heavy workload were insufficient, as he could have taken remedial actions. He also violated his duty by not filing the annulment case after receiving fees, and his allegation of being tricked into signing receipt documents was not credible. The Court considered his effort to reach out to complainants and voluntary refund as mitigating factors. Comparing similar cases, the Court imposed a suspension of three months, sternly warning against repetition. Atty. Tecson was directed to file a manifestation of his suspension’s commencement.