Case Digest: JESUS M. FERRER v. ATTY. JOSE ALLAN M. TEBELIN

JESUS M. FERRER v. ATTY. JOSE ALLAN M. TEBELIN

461 SCRA 207(2005)

A lawyer shall perform his duties with diligence and competence.

Complainant Jesus Ferrer (Ferrer) sought the legal service of Atty. Jose Allan Tebelin in order to claim for damages against Global Link Multimodal Transport Inc. (Global Link) during a vehicular accident. Atty. Tebelin agreed to render service and pursuance to this, he charged P5, 000 as acceptance fee to Ferrer. Ferrer thereafter filed a complaint against Atty. Tebelin for allegedly abandoning his case and refusing to talk and see him. For his part, Atty. Tebelin contends that he advised Ferrer that it would take time, as he needs to talk to Global Link. Conversely, he offered to return the P5, 000 and the records of the case.

The hearing of the case was set but Atty.Tebelin did not show up to the scheduled hearings. Due to this, the case was acted on the pleadings and reports. Based on the reports submitted by Integrated Bar of the Philippines Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD), Atty. Tebelin appeared and informed the Commission that he was willing to return the money to Ferrer but he failed to do so. It was recommended that Atty. Tebelin be suspended for 2 years for failure to perform his services.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Tebelin is liable for abandonment of his obligation as a lawyer to his client

HELD:

Under Canon 18, a lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence. Rule 18.03, on the other hand, provides that a lawyer shall not neglect legal matters entrusted to him. In this case the respondent lawyer has an obligation to his client.
The Court faults Atty. Tebelin 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 which provides that 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.