The Supreme Court (SC) disbarred a lawyer for misappropriating over PHP 60 million worth of his clients’ funds.
In a Per Curiam Decision, the SC En Banc disbarred* Atty. Demosthenes S. Tecson (Atty. Tecson) for gross misconduct in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA).
Atty. Tecson was engaged by Mamerta C. Lizada, Benito Cuizon, Abelardo Cuizon, and Enrique Quizon (petitioners) to represent them in an expropriation case before the Regional Trial Court (RTC). The RTC ruled in their favor and awarded them compensation in the amount of PHP 134 million. Atty. Tecson personally received the funds on his clients’ behalf but only remitted PHP 53 million, keeping the rest as his attorney’s fees and allegedly for the senatorial campaign of former Justice Secretary Leila de Lima.
Petitioners filed an administrative case for disbarment against Atty. Tecson with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP).
Atty. Tecson stated that the remaining funds were used as a “facilitation fee” for a “PR man” to expedite the payment of compensation, and that this was done with the petitioners’ consent.
After investigation, the IBP found Atty. Tecson guilty of violating his duty of fidelity to the law under Canon III of the CPRA and recommended his disbarment.
The SC adopted IBP’s findings and recommendation.
Canon III of the CPRA requires lawyers to uphold the Constitution and laws, aid in the administration of justice, and advocate for their clients’ interest. This duty of fidelity to the law includes the obligation to immediately and properly account for a client’s fund or property, use it for the intended purpose, and promptly return any unused portion.
If a lawyer fails to manage a client’s money properly during and after the lawyer-client relationship, this is considered misappropriation. If the lawyer does not return the money upon request, it is assumed that they have misappropriated the funds for their own benefit, thereby violating the client’s trust.
In this case, Atty. Tecson could not refute this assumption. His assertion that the unreturned amount was used to pay a “PR man” to expedite the case lacked supporting evidence.
Additionally, even if this claim were true, it would amount to bribery. The SC emphasized that lawyers must never give inappropriate or illegal advice. Thus, their duty to account for their client’s funds and property must align with their obligation to obey the law. Lawyers must use their client’s funds only for lawful purposes.
Given the seriousness of his offense, the SC disbarred him effective immediately and ordered him to return the unremitted amount of PHP 67 million to the petitioners. (Courtesy of the SC Office of the Spokesperson)
This press release is prepared for members of the media and the general public by the SC Office of the Spokesperson as a simplified summary of the SC’s Decision. The full text of the Decision in A.C. No. 14203 (Mamerta C. Lizada, Benito Cuizon, Abelardo Cuizon, and Enrique Quizon v. Atty. Demosthenes S. Tecson) shall be uploaded to the SC website once available.
