A.C. No. 14203 – MAMERTA C. LIZADA, BENITO CUIZON, ABELARDO CUIZON, and ENRIQUE CUIZON, complainants, vs. ATTY. DEMOSTHENES S. TECSON, respondent.

PER CURIAM

Rule Synopsis

The fidelity expected of a lawyer does not mean unbridled loyalty to their client’s cause. Fidelity pertains to a lawyer’s faithfulness to the rule of law.

If the lawyer fails to return his client’s fund or property upon demand, it is presumed that the lawyer misappropriated the same for their own use to the prejudice and in violation of the trust reposed in them by the client.

Facts

An administrative complaint for disbarment was filed against Atty. Demosthenes Tecson (Atty. Tecson) for violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) due to his alleged failure to remit to the complainants Lizada, et al. PHP67 million+ representing half of the latter’s just compensation.

Sps. Cuizon, Lizata et al.’s predecessors, hired Atty. Tecson to represent them in the expropriation proceedings involving a 14k+ sqm lot in Cebu registered in their name which was expropriated by the Export Processing Zone Authority (EPZA). The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found the expropriation proper and fixed the just compensation plus interest at P134 million+. Atty. Tecson received the check for the entire amount. He then remitted P13 million+ to each of the complainants or a total of P53 million+. Meanwhile, Lizada et al. expected to receive P26 million+ each and were surprised when they received only half of the said amount.

Atty. Tecson kept P13 million+ (equivalent to the individual share of Lizada et al.) as attorney’s fees. Meanwhile, Atty. Tecson claimed that the P67 million+ was given to the “PR man” to ensure and expedite the payment of their just compensation. He admitted that he suggested the engagement of a “PR man” but alleged that the same was with the conformity of Lizada, et al.

The IBP Investigating Commissioner (IC) found that Atty. Tecson violated Canon III of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA), and recommended that he be disbarred and ordered to return the P67 million+ to Lizada, et al. with interest. the IBP Board of Governors (IBP Board) approved and adopted IC’s recommendation to impose the penalty of disbarment but disapproved the recommendation that Atty. Tecson be obliged to return the P67 million+.

Issues

1. Should Atty. Tecson be disbarred?
2. Should Atty. Tecson be required to return the P67 million+ to Lizada et al.?

Note: the CPRA applies in this case although the complaint against Atty. Tecson was instituted before its effectivity. Sec. 1 of the CPRA provides for its retroactive application “except to the extent that in the opinion of the Supreme Court, its retroactive application would not be feasible or would work injustice.” Here, it does not appear to the Court that the retroactive application of the CPRA is not feasible or would work injustice to any of the parties.

Ruling and Discussion

1. Yes, Atty. Tecson should be disbarred.
   
   Atty. Tecson failed to observe and live up to his duty of fidelity under Canon III of the CPRA.
   
   The CPRA provides that a lawyer must observe fidelity in all his dealings. Under Canon III of the CPRA, fidelity “pertains to a lawyer’s duty to uphold the Constitution and the laws of the land, to assist in the administration of justice as an officer of the court, and to advance or defend a client’s cause, with full devotion, genuine interest, and zeal in the pursuit of truth and justice.”
   
   The fidelity expected of a lawyer does not mean unbridled loyalty to their client’s cause. Fidelity pertains to a lawyer’s faithfulness to the rule of law. In advocating for their client’s interests, a lawyer must always observe the law and legal processes. They must never give inappropriate or illegal advice or pursue an illicit course of action.
   
   Here, Atty. Tecson deliberately chose to cut short and undermine the regular process of execution by advising his clients to bribe. More shocking is Atty. Tecson’s unabashed admission of his role in the bribery. He readily admitted that he suggested to engage a PR man without any showing of remorse or intimation that he was at least aware of the wrongfulness of his action.
   
   Canon VI, Section 33 of the CPRA expressly classifies gross misconduct and misappropriating a client’s funds or properties, among others, as a serious offenses. The Court finds the penalty of disbarment appropriate. In similar cases where respondent lawyers misappropriated their clients’ money or engaged in bribery or corruption, the Court imposed upon them the penalty of disbarment from the practice of law.
2. Yes, Atty. Tecson should be required to return the P67 million+ to Lizada et al.
   
   An integral part of a lawyer’s duty of fidelity is their duty to account for their client’s properties during and after the lawyer-client relationship as defined under Canon III, Section 49 of the CPRA. The lawyer’s duty to account during engagement commences immediately upon their receipt of the fund or property belonging to the client. This duty includes: (a) preparing an inventory for said fund or property, (b) using the same for the stated purpose, and (c) promptly returning the unused portion thereof to the client upon demand or upon the accomplishment of the stated purpose. When the lawyer claims to have spent or utilized the client’s money or property for the stated purpose, it is incumbent upon them to show proof.
   
   A lawyer’s duty to account includes their duty to promptly give or return to the client the latter’s fund or property upon the latter’s demand, unless the lawyer has spent or utilized the same for the client’s stated purpose. If the lawyer fails to return said fund or property upon demand, it is presumed that the lawyer misappropriated the same for their own use to the prejudice and in violation of the trust reposed in them by the client.
   
   Here, Lizada, et al. demanded Atty. Tecson to remit to them the amount of P67 million+. There is no indication from the records that Lizada, et al. waived the unremitted amount or that they instructed Atty. Tecson to use or spend the same for a specified purpose. To the contrary, Lizada, et al. were surprised when they received only half of what is due them, and were disappointed to learn that the same will be given to Sen. De Lima in support of her senatorial bid. These give rise to the the presumption that Atty. Tecson misappropriated the same for his benefit. Atty. Tecson has the burden to overcome such presumption by presenting evidence that he utilized the unremitted amount for its intended purpose. Atty. Tecson failed to do so. He merely alleged that said amount was given to a PR man with the conformity of Lizada, et al.
   
   For clarity, even if Atty. Tecson was able to establish his allegations that the P67 million+ was indeed given to the PR man with the conformity of Lizada, et al., he will still be found guilty of violating his duty to account and, will still be directed to return said amount to Lizada, et al. A lawyer shall not advise their client to use the latter’s funds or properties for an illicit purpose nor shall they blindly obey their client’s instructions on how the latter’s funds or properties are to be utilized. Rather, they have the legal duty to advise such client of the illegality of the latter’s desired course of action, and the professional duty to propose a legal alternative. Otherwise, the lawyer may terminate the lawyer-client relationship.

dispositive

Atty. Tecson found GUILTY of Gross Misconduct and misappropriating his clients’ funds. He is DISBARRED and his name STRICKEN OFF the Roll of Attorneys. He is also ORDERED to IMMEDIATELY RETURN to the complainants PHP67,170,982.57, with interest.