Mamerta Lizada et al. vs Demosthenes Tecson

A.C. No. 14203 – Legal Ethics – Fidelity – Duty to Account – A lawyer must not dispense illegal advice

Mamerta Lizada and three others were owners of parcels of land in Cebu sought to be expropriated by the Export Processing Zone Authority (EPZA) in 1981. Lizada et al. hired Atty. Demosthenes Tecson in the expropriation case. It was agreed that Lizada et al. and Tecson shall divide equally the judgment award. After thirty-five years, the trial court directed EPZA to pay Lizada et al. the total of Php134M. EPZA complied and Tecson received the money for his clients.

Naturally, Lizada et al. expected to receive about Php26M each (Php134M ÷ 5). However, Tecson only delivered to them Php13M each. When confronted, Tecson told Lizada et al. that half of the judgment award was to be used for Leila De Lima’s senatorial bid.

Subsequently, Lizada et al. filed a disbarment case against Tecson.

In his answer, Tecson averred that Lizada et al. knew all along that 50% of the judgment award will be used to pay a PR man whose services were employed by them to expedite the proceedings.

ISSUE: Whether or not Tecson must be disbarred.

HELD: Yes. By his own admission, Tecson provided illegal advice to Lizada et al. He admitted advising them to hire a PR man to expedite the proceedings of the expropriation case which suggested that they engaged in bribery. In advocating for their client’s interests, lawyers must always observe the law and legal processes. Lawyers must never give inappropriate or illegal advice or pursue an illicit course of action.

Nevertheless, Lizada et al. are not bound by Tecson’s admission. The SC gave credence to Lizada et al’s allegations that they had no knowledge nor consent to Tecson’s disposition of the Php67M. Hence, Tecson must return the Php67M to Lizada et al. In fact, the SC declared that even if Lizada et al agreed to the hiring of a PR man, Tecson must still return the Php67M to Lizada et al for failing to account his clients’ money.

A lawyer’s duty to account is an integral part of their duty of fidelity. This is already explicit under Canon III, Section 49 of the CPRA. Unlike in Rule of the CPR which simply states that a lawyer must account for all money or property collected or received for or from a client, the CPRA now clearly defines the nature and extent of this duty, both during the existence of the lawyer-client relationship and after its termination.

Tecson was disbarred and was directed to return the Php67M to Lizada et al.

Read full text.

Note: In previous administrative cases against lawyers involving misappropriation of client funds, the SC denied prayers for erring lawyers to return misappropriated client funds for the reason that disciplinary cases against lawyers are not collection cases.