~

'.,,

~epublit of tbe ~bilippine~

~upreme ~ourt
~aguio QCitp

FIRST DIVISION

NOTICE TIME: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

Sirs/Mesdames:
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a
Resolution dated April 1, 2019 which reads as follows:

"A.C. No. 12141 [Formerly CBD Case No. 15-4659] (DON

VICENTE C. REAL, Complainant, v. ATTY. JOSE MARIO EL/NO
T. TAN, Respondent.) - We resolve the administrative complaint1
filed by Don Vicente C. Real against respondent Atty. Jose Mario
Elirio Tan for violation of Canons 17 and 18 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.

Antecedents

The complainant alleged that sometime in 2014, the Board of

Regents (BOR) of the Negros Oriental State University (NORSU)
charged him with gross misconduct, serious dishonesty, falsification
of official documents and gross insubordination in connection with
the procurement of a multi-speech laboratory while sitting as
President ofNORSU. He engaged the services of the respondent, who
in tum, attended the scheduled hearings and prepared his Answer and
other pleadings in connection with the complaint filed by NORSU. 2

On November 27, 2014, the respondent filed a Manifestation Ex

Abundanti Ad Cautelam arguing that the November 29-30, 2014
hearing for the presentation of defense evidence had no authority from
the BOR. He then advised the complainant and his witnesses not to
appear during the hearing. However, the Chairperson of the Formal
Investigation Committee declared the complainant in default. The
respondent filed a Manifestation Ex Abundanti Ad Cautelam on
December 8, 2014 to again question the authority of the Committee,
as well as the order declaring the complainant in default. 3

- over - five (5) pages ...

193-A

Rollo, pp. 16-23.

2 Id. at I.
Id. at 5.

·~
 ..
RESOLUTION 2 A.C. No. 12141
April 1, 2019

On December 19, 2014, the respondent sent the complainant a

text message informing him that he would be vacationing in the
United States. Since then, the complainant did not hear anything from
the respondent. 4

On January 19, 2015, the complainant sent the respondent a

photocopy of BOR Resolution No. 128 s. 2014 which directed him to
take the opportunity to defend himself. However, he did not receive
any advice from the respondent regarding the resolution despite his
repeated attempts to communicate with him. 5

Due to the absence of any response from the respondent, the

complainant felt abandoned that he decided to resign from his office.
On January 26, 2015, the complainant sent to the respondent a copy of
the Manifestation and Motion filed by the Office of the Solicitor
General (OSG), but again, he failed to hear anything from the
respondent. 6

On February 13, 2015, the complainant again visited the

respondent's office and was surprised to learn that the latter received a
copy of an order from the BOR dismissing him from service with the
accessory penalties of cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of
retirement benefits, and perpetual disqualification from holding public
office. On April 12, 2015, the complainant decided to send a letter to
the respondent to express his frustration. The following day, the
respondent sent him an email and advised him to drop by the office to
sign a petition for certiorari that he would file the following day. The
complainant did not sign the petition because he knew that a motion
for reconsideration should have been filed. 7

In his Motion (For Extension to File Answer), 8 the respondent

manifested that he prepared a petition for certiorari because he
believed that the Formal Investigation Committee had no authority to
conduct an investigation; that unfortunately, the complainant decided
not to pursue the petition on his belief that a motion for
reconsideration should have been previously filed. 9

- over -
193-A

4
Id.
Id.
Id. at 6.
7
Id. at 6-7.
Id. at 31-34.
9
Id. at 32.

~
.' r

RESOLUTION 3 A.C. No. 12141

April 1, 2019

IBP Report and Recommendation

On September 23, 2016, Commissioner Eduardo R. Robles of

the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (CBD-IBP), submitted his Report and Recommendation10
finding Atty. Tan to have breached Canons 17 and 18 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility and recommending his suspension from
the practice of law for three (3) months.

Consequently, the IBP Board of Governors issued Resolution

No. XXII-2017-1212 adopting the recommendation of the
Commission on Bar Discipline. 11

On August 7, 2018, Atty. Tan filed before the Court a Motion

Ad Cautelamfor Leave ofCourt to Make a Manifestation, 12 explaining
his actuations that led to the present complaint. Atty. Tan explained,
among others, that he was merely helping the complainant upon the
request of a common friend. 13 He also begged for the Court's
benevolence considering that this was the first time that an
administrative proceeding had been commenced against him. 14

Issue

Did Atty. Jose Mario Elino Tan violate Canons 17 and 18 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility in handling the complainant's
case?

Our Ruling

We resolve to ADOPT the recommendation of the IBP.

Canons 17 and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility

read:

CANON 17 - A LAWYER OWES FIDELITY TO THE CAUSE

OF HIS CLIENT AND HE SHALL BE MINDFUL OF THE
TRUST AND CONFIDENCE REPOSED IN HIM.

CANON 18 - A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH

COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE.

xx xx

- over -
193-A
10
Id. at 118-121.
11
Id. at 118-119.
12 Id.at126-128.
13
Id. at 126.
14
Id. at 127.

~
 ' ..
RESOLUTION 4 A.C. No. 12141
April 1, 2019

Rule 18. 02 - A lawyer shall not handle any legal

matter without adequate preparation.

Rule 18. 03- A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter

entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection
therewith shall render him liable.

Rule 18. 04- A lawyer shall keep the client informed

of the status of his case and shall respond within a
reasonable time to the clients request for information.

CANON 19 - A LA WYER SHALL REPRESENT HIS CLIENT

WITH ZEAL WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF THE LAW.

Ordinarily, lawyers may decline employment and refuse to

accept representation, if they are not in a position to carry it out
effectively or competently. But once they agree to handle a case,
attorneys are required by the Code to undertake the task with zeal,
care, and utmost devotion. 15 Here, the respondent had abandoned his
client without any justification. His continuous inaction despite
repeated follow-ups revealed his cavalier attitude and appalling
indifference toward his client's cause, in blatant disregard of his duties
as a lawyer.

It would be immaterial that Atty. Tan had only agreed to render

his services to the complainant as an accommodation. It must be
stressed that whenever a lawyer accepts a case, it deserves his full
attention, diligence, skill and competence, regardless of its importance
and whether or not it is for a fee or free. 16

In view of the negligence committed by the respondent in

promoting and protecting the cause of his client, We find as proper the
recommendation of the IBP to suspend him from the practice of law
for a period of three (3) months consistent with our ruling in Edquibal
v. Ferrer, Jr., 17 and Ford v. Daitol. 18

WHEREFORE, the Court FINDS ATTY. JOSE MARIO

ELINO T. TAN GUILTY of violating Canons 17 and 18 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility and SUSPENDS him from the practice
of law for a period of three (3) months.

Let copies of this resolution be included in the personal records

of Atty. Jose Mario Elino T. Tan and entered in his file in the Office

- over -
193-A

15 Padilla v. Samson, A.C. No. 10253, August 22, 2017.

16
Spouses Aranda v. Elayda, A.C. No. 7907, December 15, 2010.
17
A.C. No. 5687, February 3, 2005.
18
A.C. No. 3736, November 16, 1995 (Resolution).

~
.,,
RESOLUTION 5 A.C. No. 12141
April 1, 2019

of the Bar Confidant, and be disseminated to all lower courts by the

Office of the Court Administrator, as well as to the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines, for their information and guidance.

SO ORDERED." Jardeleza, J., on official leave

Very truly yours,

Divisi

Mr. Don Vicente C. Real Atty. Jose Mario Elino T. Tan

Complainant
Brgy. Looc, Bais City
6206 Negros Oriental
Respondent
GICA DEL SOCORRO ESPINOZA
VILLARMIA FERNANDEZ & TAN
LAW OFFICES
3/F Gilaida Building
218-G R. Landon Ext., 6000 Cebu City

Integrated Bar of the Philippines

1605 Pasig City

Office of the Bar Confidant (x)

Supreme Court

Office of the Court Administrator (x)

Supreme Court

Public Information Office (x)

Library Services (x)
Supreme Court
(For uploading pursuant to A.M.
No. 12-7-1-SC)

UR ~