HEIRS OF SIXTO L. TAN, SR. vs. ATTY. BELTRAN

HEIRS OF SIXTO L. TAN, SR., represented by RECTO A. TAN vs. ATTY. NESTOR B. BELTRAN

A.C. No. 5819

February 1, 2017

”Before this Court is an administrative complaint against respondent, Atty. Nestor B. Beltran. His derelictions allegedly consisted of his belated filing of an appeal in a criminal case and failure to relay a court directive for the payment of docket fees in a civil case to his clients - complainants Heirs of Sixto L. Tan, Sr. represented by Recto A. Tan. The latter also accused him of unduly receiving ₱200,000 as payment for legal services.”

FACTS :

After agreeing to pay attorney's fees of ₱200,000, complainants engaged the services of respondent counsel for the filing of cases to recover their commercial properties valued at approximately ₱30 million. Complainants filed a criminal action for falsification of public documents and use of falsified documents against Spouses Melanio and Nancy Fernando and Sixto Tan, Jr., this case was dismissed by the provincial prosecutor of Albay.

Respondent was notified of the order of dismissal. He filed an appeal via a Petition for Review before the Secretary of the Department of Justice (SOJ). It was, however, filed beyond the 15-day reglementary period to perfect an appeal. The SOJ dismissed the belated Petition for Review. Respondent no longer filed a motion for reconsideration to remedy the ruling.

Complainants instituted a related civil suit to annul the sale of their commercial properties before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Naga City. After being given ₱7,000 by his clients, respondent tasked his secretary to pay the docket fees computed at ₱1,722. Unfortunately, the Clerk of Court erred in the assessment of the docket fees. To correct the error, the RTC required the payment of additional docket fees through an Order which respondent received. However, two weeks earlier, he had moved to withdraw as counsel with the conformity of his clients. No separate copy of the Order was sent to any of the complainants.

The balance of the docket fees remained unpaid. The RTC dismissed the civil case, citing the nonpayment of docket fees as one of its bases. Complainants wrote this Court a letter-complaint asking that disciplinary actions be meted out to respondent. They likewise contended that he had unduly received ₱200,000 as attorney's fees, despite his failure to render effective legal services for them. As for the dismissal of the civil action for nonpayment of docket fees, respondent disclaimed any fault on his part, since he had already withdrawn as counsel in that case.1âwphi1Anent his receipt of ₱200,000 as attorney's fees, respondent denied collecting that amount. He only admitted that he had received ₱30,000 to cover expenses for "the preparation of the complaints, docket fee, affidavits, and other papers needed for the filing of the said cases."13 He did not deny his receipt of ₱7,000 for fees and other sundry expenses, of which ₱l,722 had already been paid to the Clerk of Court for docket fees. In any event, Atty. Beltran argued that ₱200,000 as attorney's fees was inadequate, considering that the property under dispute was worth ₱30 million.

this Court referred the administrative case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report, and recommendation.IBP found respondent guilty of neglect in handling the criminal case and recommended his suspension from the practice of law for three months.

ISSUES:

1. Whether respondent neglected legal matters entrusted to him when he belatedly filed an appeal before the SOJ, resulting in the dismissal of LS. No. 2001-03 7
2. Whether respondent is guilty of violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility and other ethical standards for failing to inform complainants of the RTC Order to pay the balance of the docket fees in Civil Case No. 2001-0329
3. Whether respondent unduly received ₱200,000 as attorney's fees

RULING:

The Court set aside the unsubstantiated recommendation of the IBP Board of Governors. Its resolutions are only recommendatory and always subject to this Court’s review.

In the first issue:

The Court ruled that failure of the counsel to appeal within the prescribed period constitutes negligence and malpractice. The Court elucidated that per Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, "a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable." In the case at bar, respondent similarly admits that he failed to timely file the Petition for Review before the SOJ. As a result of his delayed action, his clients lost the criminal case. this Court sanctions him for belatedly filing an appeal.

In the second issue:

Respondent argues that he was no longer bound to inform complainants of the RTC Order requiring the payment of full docket fees, given that he had already moved to withdraw as counsel with the conformity of the latter. We find that argument unjustified. Taking into consideration the attendant circumstances herein vis-à-vis the aforementioned administrative cases decided by this Court, we deem it proper to impose on Atty. Beltran a two-month suspension from the practice of law for belatedly filing an appeal before the SOJ. We also admonish him to exercise greater care and diligence in the performance of his duty to administer justice.

In the third issue:

In administrative cases against lawyers, the quantum of proof required is preponderance of evidence. Preponderance of evidence means that the evidence adduced by one side is superior to or has greater weight than that of the other. The Investigating Commissioner did not explain the recommendation for the restitution of that sum. Moreover, complainants do not contest that respondent received this sum for fees and other sundry expenses. Neither do the records show that they demanded the return of this amount from respondent. In consideration of these facts, the proper corrective action is to order the accounting of the full sum of ₱35,278.