AMAYA VS.

TECSON
A.C. No. 5996 February 07, 2005
(Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility)

Disbarment should not be decreed where any punishment less severe such as reprimand,
suspension or fine would accomplish the end desired.

MARIO S. AMAYA, Complainant,

vs.
ATTY. DELANO A. TECSON, Respondent.

FACTS

In a Complaint dated March 20, 2003, Mario S. Amaya sought the disbarment of Atty. Delano
A. Tecson for "highly irregular actuations and/or grave negligence in handling an appeal with
the Court of Appeals." The complainant alleged that he retained the services of the respondent
to handle the said appeal when his former counsel suffered a stroke due to acute hypertension.
The respondent demanded P20,000.00 for the filing of the notice of appeal, which the
complainant immediately paid but was dismissed because of untimely filing of theTecson of the
Notice of Appeal. The latter then requested another amount for the filing of motion for
reconsideration which was also eventually dismissed because of non-filing of Tecson of the
prescribed docket fee. Respondent Tecson returned the money for litigation expenses to Amaya
after such denial

ISSUE

WHETHER OR NOT Atty. Tecson be disbarred.

RULING

Acceptance of money from a client establishes an attorney-client relationship and gives rise to
the similar duty of fidelity to the client’s cause. Rule 18.03 enjoins a lawyer not to neglect a
legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.
A lawyer engaged to represent a client in a case bears the responsibility of protecting the latter's
interest with utmost diligence.Thus, it is the duty of a lawyer to serve his client with
competence and diligence and he should exert his best efforts to protect within the bounds of the
law the interest of his client. It is not enough that a practitioner is qualified to handle a legal
matter; he is also required to prepare adequately and give the appropriate attention to his legal
work The Court rules that in failing to zealously attend to a legal matter entrusted to him, the
respondent failed to live up to the duties and responsibilities of a member of the legal
profession. It must be stressed however that disbarment is the most severe form of disciplinary
sanction, and, as such, the power to disbar must always be exercised with great caution for only
the most imperative reasons and in clear cases of misconduct affecting the standing and moral
character of the lawyer as an officer of the court and a member of the bar. Accordingly,
disbarment should not be decreed where any punishment less severe – such as a reprimand,
suspension, or fine – would accomplish the end desired. Considering that the respondent in this
case returned the money for litigation expenses to the complainant after the denial of the motion
for reconsideration, the Court sees fit to reprimand the respondent for his actuations.

WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Delano E. Tecson is adjudged GUILTY of violating Rule

18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and is hereby REPRIMANDED. He is
STERNLY WARNED that similar conduct in the future shall be dealt with more severely.