A.C. No. 13630 – Legal Ethics – CPRA; Canon III; Fidelity – Dishonesty; Non-existent cases; Defrauding clients
Prohibition on Lending and Borrowing
In 2012, Alifer Pante hired the services of Atty. Jose Allan Tebelin for an annulment of marriage case. The agreed price was Php200k. Pante was able to give Tebelin a downpayment of Php100k. However in 2013, when Pante inquired with the court, he found out that the case docket number provided to him by Tebelin was for another case and that his case was non-existent. Pante referred the matter to the IBP and Tebelin promised to pay him back. In 2014, Tebelin borrowed Php50k from Pante for the tuition fee of his children. Pante was never paid back and was forced to engage the services of another lawyer. He then filed a disbarment case against Tebelin.
ISSUE: Whether or not Tebelin should be disbarred.
HELD: Yes. This was already Tebelin’s second offense. He was previously suspended in another administrative case. His acts demonstrate his unfitness to be a lawyer. He committed dishonesty and deceit by making Pante believe that his case was filed in court.
The SC also emphasized that the quantum of proof required to disbar a lawyer is substantial evidence or evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.
Pante was able to prove that indeed he paid Tebelin but the latter did nothing. Worse, he even borrowed money from Pante. Lawyers must refrain from borrowing from their clients unless their client’s rights are fully protected. It is unfathomable for Tebelin to borrow from Pante despite the fact that he did not render any legal services to him.
