G.R. No. A.C. No. 13630 (Formerly CBD Case No. 17-5285). June 27, 2023.
Alifer C. Pante, Complainant, vs. Atty. Jose Allan M. Tebelin, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Alifer C. Pante engaged the services of respondent Atty. Jose Allan M. Tebelin in June 2012 to file a petition for the declaration of nullity of his marriage for a package deal of ₱200,000.00. An Attorney-Client Agreement was executed on July 13, 2012. Complainant made several payments to respondent totaling ₱100,000.00, evidenced by acknowledgment receipts and notations. Respondent furnished complainant with a copy of a Petition bearing a case number (Civil Case No. R-PSY-12-03988-CV). Upon inquiry with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasay City, complainant discovered the Petition was non-existent and the case number pertained to another case. Respondent became unresponsive to complainant’s follow-ups. After complainant threatened to file an administrative complaint, respondent referred him to another lawyer whom complainant never met. Respondent later borrowed additional money from complainant for his children’s tuition and for alleged case expenses, which were not fully applied as intended. Complainant verified that respondent had not filed required submissions as promised. Complainant was forced to hire a new lawyer and filed the administrative complaint. Respondent failed to participate in the IBP proceedings or submit a position paper despite notices.

ISSUE

Whether respondent’s acts violated the Code of Professional Responsibility (and subsequently the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability) to merit the penalty of disbarment.

RULING

Yes. The Court adopted the findings of the IBP Board of Governors and disbarred respondent. Complainant proved by substantial evidence that respondent was engaged as counsel, received money for legal services, and failed to perform his duties. Respondent’s acts constituted dishonesty, deceit, and gross misconduct. He violated his fiduciary duty, failed to serve his client with competence and diligence, and engaged in improper conduct by borrowing money from his client during the lawyer-client relationship without proper safeguards. The Court found violations of Canons 2 (Propriety), 3 (Fidelity), and 4 (Competence and Diligence) of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability. The gravity of the offenses, including misappropriation of client funds and betrayal of trust, warranted disbarment. Respondent was ordered disbarred, his name stricken from the Roll of Attorneys, and he was directed to return all sums received from complainant with legal interest.