EN BANC
[A.C. No. 6590. June 27, 2005.]
[Formerly CBD-02-961]
JESUS M. FERRER, complainant , vs. ATTY. JOSE ALLAN M. TEBELIN,
respondent .
DECISION
CARPIO MORALES, J : p
It appears that on December 3, 2001, the jeepney of Jesus M. Ferrer (complainant)
was involved in a vehicular accident allegedly due to the reckless driving of the driver of
Global Link Multimodal Transport, Inc. (Global Link). As a result of the vehicular accident,
complainant claimed to have suffered damages in the amount of P34,650.00 representing
cost of repair of the jeepney and P800.00 per day representing lost earnings.
Complainant sought assistance from the Complaint/Information Assistance Office of
the Pasay City Prosecutor's Office wherein one Victor Veron referred him to Atty. Jose
Allan M. Tebelin (respondent).
Agreeing to render legal services to complainant, respondent charged and received
from him the amount of P5,000.00 as acceptance fee.
Complainant later brought to the attention of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
(IBP), by letter of March 23, 2002, 1 his complaint against respondent for allegedly
abandoning his case and refusing to talk or see him.
Having been advised 2 by the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) to file a
verified complaint in accordance with Section 1, Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court, 3
complainant filed on May 16, 2002 a letter-complaint-affidavit 4 against respondent, the
pertinent portions of which read:
This is to follow up my complaint against Atty. Jose Allan M. Tebelin who
was highly recommended to handle my case (Vehicle accident against Global
Link Multimodal Transport) by Mr. Victor Veron of the Complainant/Information
Assistance Office of the Pasay City Prosecutor.
Atty. Jose Allan M. Tebelin agreed and charged me 5,000.00 Php as his
Attorney's Acceptance Fee, which I gave him together with the necessary
document needed. However, after accepting my 5,000.00 Php, he committed
fraud by abandoning my case. He refused to talk to me or see me at his appointed
given time at the office of Mr. Victor Veron. He hanged up when I called him in his
cellular phone whose number was given to me by his secretary so that I can
surely contact him.
I wrote a letter to Mr. Victor Veron requesting his goodself to contact Atty.
Jose Allan M. Tabelin to find out the situation and score of my case and also to
inform him that I want him to return my 5,000.00 Php so that I can engage the
service of another lawyer to carry on my case. ADc SHC
Mr. Victor Veron received my letter and his immediate reply was for me to
write a letter addressed to Atty. Jose Allan M. Tebelin informing him that I am
withdrawing from our agreement and [to return] my 5,000.00 Php since he
abandoned me. This I did.
I wrote a letter to Atty. Jose Allan M. Tebelin and sent it by registered
mail with Registry No. 2809 at Pasay City Hall (Cuneta Astrodome) Post Office. I
did not receive any reply and somebody in the office of Mr. Victor Veron
suggested that I refer my case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) and I
will surely get an answer. This I did.
xxx xxx xxx
I am attaching herewith photocopies of all my letters whose contents
when summed up will clearly and concisely state and support the facts
complained of.
Sheet 1: Photocopy of Atty. Jose Allan M. Tebelin's Calling card and at the
back is his acknowledgment that he received my 5,000.00 Php as his Atty.'s
Acceptance fee;
Sheet 2: Photocopy of my letter addressed to Mr. Victor Veron informing
that Atty. Jose Allan M. Tebelin have abandoned my case and to kindly contact
him to find out the situation of my case and informed him too that I am withdrawing
from our agreement and return my 5,000.00Php.
Sheet 3: Photocopy of my letter [dated March 18, 2002] addressed to Atty.
Jose Allan M. Tebelin and sent it by registered mail [on March 19, 2002] with
Registry No. 2809 at Pasay City Hall (Cuneta Astrodome) Post Office.
Sheet 4: Photocopy of my letter addressed to the IBP sent by registered
mail Registry No. 3014 at Pasay City Hall (Cuneta Astrodome) Post Office.
Sheet 5: Photocopy of the reply of Atty. Victor C. Fernandez, Director for
Bar Discipline of the IBP.
xxx xxx xxx (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
Acting on the complaint, the IBP-CBD, by Order 5 of May 17, 2002, required
respondent to submit his Answer.
Respondent, by Answer 6 dated August 1, 2002, denying some of the allegations
against him, explained as follows: He agreed to handle the case of complainant for which
he received P5,000.00 as acceptance fee. Prior to his acceptance to handle the case,
however, he extensively interviewed complainant and advised him that the only
"appropriate" case that could be filed against Global Link is a civil case for damages as a
result of the reckless driving of Global Link's unidentified driver, but that the filing of a
complaint would take some time as he (respondent) would "work first to have an audience
or talk with [Global Link's] manager or representative". He thus accordingly called the
attention of Global Link, through one Mr. Bongalos, "sometime in the last week of January
2002," regarding the claim of complainant but he received no word from Global Link,
prompting him to send a demand letter 7 dated February 20, 2002 to it, photocopy of which
letter he attached to his Answer.
Respecting complainant's allegation that he (respondent) would always hang up the
telephone whenever complainant called him, respondent denied the same, he asseverating
that complainant never called him up, albeit his (complainant's) daughter called him up and
it was to her that he explained that Global Link's reply to the demand for payment of
damages had to be awaited first.
Respondent did deny too having abandoned complainant's case, he advancing that
he in fact prepared a draft of a complaint 8 dated January 15, 2002 against Global Link a
copy of which he also attached to his Answer.
Respondent nevertheless proffered that he was willing to return the P5,000.00 and
complainant's records of the case.Dc ICEa
Complainant, in a pleading entitled "COMPLAINANT'S ANSWER AND COMMENTS
TO ANSWER OF RESPONDENT," 9 manifested that he welcomed and appreciated
respondent's offer to return the P5,000.00 "as that is the very intention under the sound
discretion of the Honorable Commission on Bar Discipline (sic)."
The IBP-CBD set the case for hearing on March 13, 2003 during which respondent,
who was the only one who showed up, furnished the IBP-CBD his new address — 2nd
Floor, Lomat Building, 111 Pasadeña Street, F.B. Harrison, Pasay City. 10
The hearing of the case was reset on May 29, 2003 at which only two ladies who
identified themselves as Conchita Ferrer and Grace Ochoa appeared and informed the IBP-
CBD that complainant had died on January 2, 2003 . The heirs of complainant were thus
ordered to submit a certified true copy of his death certificate and a formal notice of
substitution of party-complainant, 11 but there is no showing that they complied therewith.
On the scheduled hearing on July 10, 2003, only Conchita Ferrer appeared. 12 What
transpired on said date, the records do not show.
The IBP-CBD subsequently issued on January 30, 2004 a Notice of Mandatory
Conference on March 12, 2004. 13
On the scheduled mandatory conference, no one showed up. While a copy of the
notice of said conference was sent to respondent at his given address, it was returned with
a notation "moved out." 14
The hearing of the case was reset to April 16, 2004 1 5 and June 24, 2004 16 during
which, again, no one showed up.
The IBP-CBD thereupon acted on the pleadings and submitted its Report and
Recommendation prepared by Commissioner Wilfredo E. J. E. Reyes reading as follows,
quoted verbatim :
Based on the pleadings submitted by the parties, the following facts are
undisputed:
The undersigned admits that it agreed that to handle the case of the
complainant Mr. Jesus M. Ferrer against Global Link Multimodal Transport
(GLMT for brevity) referred to by Mr. Vic Beron of the Pasay City
Prosecutor's Office, however, it is true that I undertake to handle the same
for P5,000.00 as my acceptance fee because he is a friend of Mr. Beron;
That the undersigned is willing to return the P5,000.00 and the
complainant's records if only to avoid any slightest prejudice between
the herein two parties.
In fact, in one occasion on March 13, 2003, the respondent appeared and
informed the Commission that he was willing to return the money to the
complainant. He failed to return the money and failed to respond to the
notices of the Commission and he failed to comply with his obligation to his
client. Obviously, the complainant has been telling the truth when he alleged that
the respondent has failed in his duty to act as his counsel.
The undersigned Commissioner believes in the allegation of the
complainant that Atty. Jose Allan M. Tebelin agreed and charged him in the
amount of P5,000.00 as attorney's fees and after accepting the fee, has
abandoned his case.
The complainant was able to show as part of his Annex the receipt of
P5,000.00 at the back of his calling card and he was able to show the demand
letter wherein he requested to return to him the amount of P5,000.00 as
acceptance fee because respondent failed to act as his counsel.
In his Answer, the respondent had the temerity to even offer the
reimbursement of the P5,000.00 only to disappear and never heard from.
Under Canon 18 — A lawyer shall serve his client with competence
and diligence.
"Rule 18.03 — A lawyer shall not neglect legal matters entrusted to
him [. . .]."
In this case the respondent lawyer has an obligation to his client.
RECOMMENDATION
It is respectfully recommended that respondent Atty. Jose Allan M. Tebelin
be suspended for a period of two (2) years for his failure to perform his services
for a client and returning the acceptance fee upon demand. It is further
recommended that respondent be ordered to return to his client the money in the
amount of P5,000.00 to the heirs of complainant. And an additional penalty of at
least one (1) year for failure of said lawyer to appear and present his proper
address before the Commission on Bar Discipline. (Emphasis and underscoring
supplied)
By Resolution 17 of July 30, 2004, the Board of Governors of the IBP:
. . . ADOPTED and APPROVED, with modification, the Report and
Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner of the above-entitled case,
herein made part of this Resolution as Annex "A"; and, finding the
recommendation fully supported by the evidence on records and the applicable
laws and rules, and for failure to perform his services for a client and failure to
return the acceptance fee upon demand, Atty. Jose Allan M. Tebelin is hereby
SUSPENDED from the practice of law for two (2) years and Ordered to Return to
the heirs of complainant the money in the amount of P5,000.00. (Emphasis in the
original; underscoring supplied)
As reflected above and confirmed by the records, after respondent showed up during
what appears to be the initial setting of the case for hearing on March 13, 2003 , nothing
had been heard from him. In complainant's case, he naturally did not show up on March 13,
2003 for, if the information given to the IBP-CBD by Conchita Ferrer and Grace Ochoa
were true, he had earlier died on January 2, 2003 .
The death of a complainant in an administrative case notwithstanding, the case may
still proceed and be resolved. As Tudtud v. Colifores instructs: 18
. . . The death of the complainant herein does not warrant the non-
pursuance of the charges against respondent Judge. In administrative cases
against public officers and employees, the complainants are, in a real sense, only
witnesses. Hence, the unilateral decision of a complainant to withdraw from an
administrative complaint, or even his death, as in the case at bar, does not
prevent the Court from imposing sanctions upon the parties subject to its
administrative supervision.
From respondent's Answer, it is gathered that while he contends that it was only
when complainant lodged the complaint against him at the IBP that he learned of
complainant's desire to have the P5,000.00 acceptance fee returned, he never
categorically denied having received complainant's letter of March 18, 2002 advising him
that he was withdrawing from their agreement to represent him in the case against Global
Link "since [he] refused to talk with [complainant] personally or by phone, make
appointments that [he] will see [complainant] at the Hall of Justice, Pasay City Hall but did
not show up at the Office of Mr. Victor Veron who had highly recommended [him] to
represent [complainant] and lastly by hanging up on [complainant] when [the latter] called
[him] on [his] cell phone whose number was given to [complainant] by [his] secretary so
that [complainant] will surely contact [him]," 19 and asking him to return the P5,000.00
acceptance fee, he having abandoned him.
Given, however, respondent's asseveration that he first brought to the attention of
Global Link in the last week of January 2002 the claim of complainant arising from the
December 3, 2001 vehicular accident , through one Mr. Bongalos and that he followed it up
by a February 20, 2002 demand letter to Global Link, which asseveration was not refuted
by complainant in his Comments on respondent's Answer, it cannot be reasonably
concluded that respondent failed to perform services for complainant when complainant, by
letter 20 of March 23, 2002 or five (5) days after he sent the March 18, 2002 letter 21 to
respondent asking for a refund of the P5,000.00, complained to the IBP.
That complainant failed to contact or communicate with respondent immediately
before he was prompted to seek a refund due to respondent's alleged unavailability, as
conveyed by respondent's secretary, does not necessarily make out a case of
abandonment, especially in light of respondent's above-mentioned unrefuted claim that in
January and February 2002, he had proffered demands for damages to Global Link and
explained to complainant's daughter that they still had to await for the response of Global
Link. STCDaI
This Court faults respondent, however, for ignoring the notices of hearing sent to him
at his address which he himself furnished , or to notify the IBP-CBD his new address if
indeed he had moved out of his given address. His actuation betrays his lack of courtesy,
his irresponsibility as a lawyer.
This Court faults respondent too for welching on his manifestation-undertaking to
return the P5,000.00, not to mention the documents bearing on the case, to complainant or
his heirs. Such is reflective of his reckless disregard of the duty imposed on him by Rule
22.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility:
Rule 22.02 A lawyer who withdraws or is discharged shall, subject to a
retaining lien, immediately turn over all papers and property to which the client is
entitled, and shall cooperate with his successor in the orderly transfer of the
matter, including all information necessary for the proper handling of the matter.
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Jose Allan M. Tebelin is hereby SUSPENDED from
the practice of law for Two (2) Months and ORDERED to return to complainant's heirs the
amount of P5,000.00, with legal interest, with a WARNING that a repetition of the same or
similar offenses will be dealt with more severely.
Let a copy of this Decision be furnished the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and all
the courts in the Philippines, and entered in the personal records of Atty. Tebelin in the
Office of the Bar Confidant.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., Puno, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-
Gutierrez, Carpio, Austria-Martinez, Corona, Callejo, Sr., Azcuna, Tinga, Chico-Nazario
and Garcia, JJ., concur.
Footnotes
1. Rollo at 7.
2. Id. at 3.
3. Section 1, Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court reads:
Section 1. How instituted. Proceedings for the disbarment, suspension or discipline of
attorneys may be taken by the Supreme Court motu propio, or by the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines (IBP) upon the verified complaint of any person . The complainant shall
state clearly and concisely the facts complained of and shall be supported by affidavits
of persons having personal knowledge of the facts therein alleged and/or by such
documents as may substantiate said acts.
xxx xxx xxx (Emphasis supplied)
4. Rollo at 1-2.
5. Id. at 9.
6. Id. at 10-14.
7. Id. at 17. The photocopy of the letter bears Registry Receipt indicating that it was posted
at the "POEA Post Office" on March 12, 2002.
8. Rollo at 18-21.
9. Id. at 35-36.
10. Id. at 47.
11. Id. at 50.
12. Id. at 51.
13. Id. at 52.
14. Id. at 54.
15. Id. at 56.
16. Id. at 58.
17. Id. at 60.
18. 411 SCRA 221, 223-224 (2003).
19. Rollo at 6.
20. Id. at 7.
21. Id. at 6.
