FIRST DIVISION

[A.C. No. 5819. February 1, 2017.]

HEIRS OF SIXTO L. TAN, SR., represented by RECTO A. TAN ,

complainants, vs. ATTY. NESTOR B. BELTRAN , respondent.

RESOLUTION

SERENO , C.J : p

Before this Court is an administrative complaint against respondent, Atty. Nestor

B. Beltran. His derelictions allegedly consisted of his belated ling of an appeal in a
criminal case and failure to relay a court directive for the payment of docket fees in a
civil case to his clients — complainants Heirs of Sixto L. Tan, Sr. represented by Recto A.
Tan. The latter also accused him of unduly receiving P200,000 as payment for legal
services.
FACTS OF THE CASE
After agreeing to pay attorney's fees of P200,000, complainants engaged the
services of respondent counsel for the ling of cases to recover their commercial
properties valued at approximately P30 million.
On July 2001, complainants led a criminal action for falsi cation of public
documents and use of falsi ed documents against Spouses Melanio and Nancy
Fernando and Sixto Tan, Jr. Docketed as I.S. No. 2001-037, 1 this case was dismissed
by the provincial prosecutor of Albay.
Respondent was noti ed of the order of dismissal on 18 October 2001. 2 On 6
November 2001, he led an appeal via a Petition for Review before the Secretary of the
Department of Justice (SOJ). It was, however, led beyond the 15-day reglementary
period to perfect an appeal. 3 Consequently, in his Resolution promulgated on 5 March
2002, 4 the SOJ dismissed the belated Petition for Review. Respondent no longer filed a
motion for reconsideration to remedy the ruling.
On 11 September 2001, complainants instituted a related civil suit to annul the
sale of their commercial properties before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Naga City,
docketed as Civil Case No. 2001-0329. 5 After being given P7,000 by his clients,
respondent tasked his secretary to pay the docket fees computed at P1,722.
Unfortunately, the Clerk of Court erred in the assessment of the docket fees. To
correct the error, the RTC required the payment of additional docket fees through an
Order dated 20 May 2002, 6 which respondent received on 29 May 2002. 7 However,
two weeks earlier, on 13 May 2002, he had moved to withdraw as counsel with the
conformity of his clients. 8 No separate copy of the Order dated 20 May 2002 was sent
to any of the complainants. 9 EATCcI

The balance of the docket fees remained unpaid. Subsequently, the RTC
dismissed the civil case, citing the nonpayment of docket fees as one of its bases. 1 0
Aggrieved by their defeat, complainants wrote this Court a letter-complaint 1 1
asking that disciplinary actions be meted out to respondent. They likewise contended
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2017 cdasiaonline.com
 that he had unduly received P200,000 as attorney's fees, despite his failure to render
effective legal services for them.
Respondent claimed 1 2 that he could no longer move for the reconsideration of
the SOJ's dismissal of his belated Petition for Review as he had only learned of the
dismissal after the period to le a motion for reconsideration had lapsed. He argued
that while he prepared the Petition for Review, his clients themselves, through Nilo Tan
and Recto Tan, signed and led the same. Thus, he imputed to complainants the
belated filing of the appeal.
As for the dismissal of the civil action for nonpayment of docket fees,
respondent disclaimed any fault on his part, since he had already withdrawn as counsel
in that case.
Anent his receipt of P200,000 as attorney's fees, respondent denied collecting
that amount. He only admitted that he had received P30,000 to cover expenses for "the
preparation of the complaints, docket fee, af davits, and other papers needed for the
ling of the said cases." 1 3 He did not deny his receipt of P7,000 for fees and other
sundry expenses, of which P1,722 had already been paid to the Clerk of Court for
docket fees. In any event, Atty. Beltran argued that P200,000 as attorney's fees was
inadequate, considering that the property under dispute was worth P30 million.
FINDINGS OF THE IBP
In a Resolution dated 12 March 2003,1 4 this Court referred the administrative
case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report, and
recommendation.
The Investigating Commissioner of the IBP, in a Report dated 24 July 2006, 1 5
found respondent guilty of neglect in handling the criminal case and recommended his
suspension from the practice of law for three months. The gist of the report reads: 1 6
The Respondent admits that the Petition for Review in this case was not
led. This key detail leads the Commissioner to conclude that the Respondent
was negligent in failing to seasonably le the Petition for Review in
I.S. No. 2001-037.
The Respondent's bare defense is that he allegedly left the ling of this
petition to the Complainants, who led it out of time. Even assuming this is true,
the Respondent cannot disclaim negligence, being the lawyer and knowing that
the case related to the Complainants' claims on properties the Respondent
himself states are worth about PHP30 million. x x x.
Some of the Respondent's pleadings instead focus to the Motion for
Reconsideration regarding the late Petition for Review's dismissal, which the
Respondent explains by stating that the Complainants informed him of this
when the period to le a Motion for Reconsideration had already lapsed. Even
assuming this is true, it is irrelevant since it is clear that the Petition for Review
itself was not seasonably filed. x x x. (Emphasis in the original) DHITCc

With respect to dismissal of the civil case, the Investigating Commissioner

cleared respondent of any liability. The former gave credence to the fact that by the
time respondent received the directive of the RTC requiring the payment of the balance
of the docket fees, the latter had already filed his withdrawal from the case.
Finally, as regards the factual claim of complainants that they paid respondent
attorney's fees amounting to P200,000, the Investigating Commissioner determined
that their allegation was unfounded, as none of them produced receipts evidencing
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2017 cdasiaonline.com
 payment. At most, what the Investigating Commissioner found was that respondent
only admitted to receiving P30,000 for expenses, aside from P5,278. 1 7 The former
recommended that respondent be ordered to restitute these sums to complainants.
In its Resolution dated 1 February 2007, 1 8 the Board of Governors of the IBP
resolved to fully dismiss the administrative case against respondent without any
explanation. Neither party has led a motion for reconsideration or petition for review
thereafter. 1 9
ISSUES OF THE CASE
I. Whether respondent neglected legal matters entrusted to him when he
belatedly led an appeal before the SOJ, resulting in the dismissal of I.S.
No. 2001-037
II. Whether respondent is guilty of violation of the Code of Professional
Responsibility and other ethical standards for failing to inform
complainants of the RTC Order to pay the balance of the docket fees in
Civil Case No. 2001-0329
III. Whether respondent unduly received P200,000 as attorney's fees
RULING OF THE COURT
We set aside the unsubstantiated recommendation of the IBP Board of
Governors. Its resolutions are only recommendatory and always subject to this Court's
review. 2 0 CAacTH

Respondent filed a belated appeal

before the SOJ.
In Reontoy v. Ibadlit , 2 1 we ruled that failure of the counsel to appeal within the
prescribed period constitutes negligence and malpractice. The Court elucidated that
per Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, "a lawyer shall not
neglect a legal matter entrusted to him and his negligence in connection therewith shall
render him liable."
In the case at bar, respondent similarly admits that he failed to timely le the
Petition for Review before the SOJ. As a result of his delayed action, his clients lost the
criminal case. Straightforwardly, this Court sanctions him for belatedly filing an appeal.
The excuse forwarded by respondent — that he delegated the ling of the
Petition for Review to complainants — will not exculpate him from administrative
liability. As correctly explained by the Investigating Commissioner of the IBP,
respondent cannot disclaim negligence, since he was the lawyer tasked to pursue the
legal remedies available to his clients.
Lawyers are expected to be acquainted with the rudiments of law and legal
procedure. A client who deals with counsel has the right to expect not just a good
amount of professional learning and competence, but also a wholehearted fealty to the
client's cause. 2 2 Thus, we nd that passing the blame to persons not trained in
remedial law is not just wrong; it is re ective of the want of care on the part of lawyers
handling the legal matters entrusted to them by their clients. 2 3
After surveying related jurisprudence, 2 4 the Investigating Commissioner
recommended the suspension of respondent from the practice of law for three months
given his infraction of ling a belated appeal before the SOJ. Yet, without explanation,
the Board of Governors resolved to ignore the recommendation of the Investigating
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2017 cdasiaonline.com
 Commissioner.
Accordingly, this Court will not adopt an unsubstantiated resolution of the Board
of Governors, especially when jurisprudence shows that we have penalized lawyers for
ling belated motions and pleadings. In the resolution of this Court in Reontoy, 2 5 we
suspended the counsel therein from the practice of law for two months, given that his
belated ling of an appeal caused his client to lose the case. In Fernandez v. Novero, Jr. ,
2 6 we likewise suspended the respondent counsel for a month after he led a motion
for reconsideration outside the reglementary period. In Barbuco v. Beltran, 2 7 this Court
imposed a six-month suspension on the lawyer, who had belatedly led a pleading,
among other derelictions. We stressed in that case that the failure to le a brief within
the reglementary period certainly constituted inexcusable negligence, more so if the
delay of 43 days resulted in the dismissal of the appeal. IAETDc

Respondent failed to inform

complainants of the RTC Order
requiring the payment of full docket
fees.
Respondent argues that he was no longer bound to inform complainants of the
RTC Order requiring the payment of full docket fees, given that he had already moved to
withdraw as counsel with the conformity of the latter. We nd that argument
unjustified.
Mercado v. Commission on Higher Education 2 8 is instructive on the effect of the
withdrawal of counsel with the conformity of the client:
As a rule, the withdrawal of a counsel from a case made with the written
conformity of the client takes effect once the same is led with the court. The
leading case of Arambulo v. Court of Appeals laid out the rule that, in general,
such kind of a withdrawal does not require any further action or approval from
the court in order to be effective. In contrast, the norm with respect to
withdrawals of counsels without the written conformity of the client is that they
only take effect after their approval by the court.
The rule that the withdrawal of a counsel with the written conformity of the
client is immediately effective once led in court, however, is not absolute.
When the counsel's impending withdrawal with the written conformity of the
client would leave the latter with no legal representation in the case, it is an
accepted practice for courts to order the deferment of the effectivity of
such withdrawal until such time that it becomes certain that service of court
processes and other papers to the party-client would not thereby be
compromised — either by the due substitution of the withdrawing counsel in the
case or by the express assurance of the party-client that he now undertakes to
himself receive serviceable processes and other papers. Adoption by courts of
such a practice in that particular context, while neither mandatory nor
sanctioned by a speci c provision of the Rules of Court, is nevertheless justi ed
as part of their inherent power to see to it that the potency of judicial processes
and judgment are preserved. (Emphasis in the original)
On 29 May 2002, when respondent herein received the RTC Order dated 20 May
2002, complainants still had no new counsel on record. Therefore, Atty. Beltran should
have acted with prudence by informing his previous clients that he had received the
directive of the court requiring the payment of docket fees. After all, lawyers are
of cers of the court. Like the court itself, respondent is an instrument for advancing the
ends of justice and his cooperation with the court is due whenever justice may be
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2017 cdasiaonline.com
 imperiled if cooperation is withheld. 2 9
The appropriate penalty for an errant lawyer depends on the exercise of sound
judicial discretion based on the surrounding facts. 3 0 In this case, we consider the fact
that not only did respondent le a belated appeal before the SOJ, but he also failed to
act with prudence by failing to inform complainants of the RTC Order dated 20 May
2002. DcHSEa

However, we cannot put the blame solely on Atty. Beltran for the nonpayment of
the docket fees in the civil case. Although not discussed by the Investigating
Commissioner, the records reveal that even if complainants' new counsel learned about
the ruling on 30 May 2002, the former still failed to pay the additional docket fees. 3 1
Taking into consideration the attendant circumstances herein vis-à-vis the
aforementioned administrative cases decided by this Court, we deem it proper to
impose on Atty. Beltran a two-month suspension from the practice of law for belatedly
ling an appeal before the SOJ. We also admonish him to exercise greater care and
diligence in the performance of his duty to administer justice.
Complainants failed to prove that
respondent received P200,000 as
attorney's fees.
In administrative cases against lawyers, the quantum of proof required is
preponderance of evidence. 3 2 Preponderance of evidence means that the evidence
adduced by one side is, as a whole, superior to or has greater weight than that of the
other. 3 3
Complainants have the burden to discharge that required quantum of proof. 3 4
Here, as accurately assessed by the Investigating Commissioner, the records do not
bear any receipt proving Atty. Beltran's collection of P200,000 as attorney's fees.
Complainants venture to argue that these sums were paid to respondent without
receipts. However, that bare argument has no other supporting evidence — object,
documentary, or testimonial. Even during the hearing of this case before the IBP, when
confronted with particular questions regarding the sums paid to respondent,
complainants could not answer when and where they gave installment payments to
Atty. Beltran. 3 5
General allegations will not meet the evidentiary standard of preponderance of
evidence. 3 6 Hence, we adopt the factual finding of the Investigating Commissioner that
complainants failed to prove their claim of payment to respondent of P200,000 as
attorney's fees.
As a nal point, the Court must clarify that the resolution of this case should not
include a directive for the return of the P35,278 as the Investigating Commissioner
recommended.
The Investigating Commissioner did not explain the recommendation for the
restitution of that sum. Moreover, complainants do not contest that respondent
received this sum for fees and other sundry expenses. Neither do the records show that
they demanded the return of this amount from respondent. In consideration of these
facts, the proper corrective action is to order the accounting of the full sum of P35,278.
WHEREFORE , in view of the foregoing, respondent Atty. Nestor B. Beltran is
SUSPENDED FOR TWO MONTHS from the practice of law with a warning that a
repetition of the same or similar acts shall be dealt with more severely. He is
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2017 cdasiaonline.com
 ADMONISHED to exercise greater care and diligence in the performance of his duties.
He is also ORDERED TO ACCOUNT for the P35,278 he received from his clients, with
the obligation to return the entire amount, or so much thereof remaining, to
complainants. SCaITA

This Decision shall take effect immediately upon receipt by Atty. Nestor B.
Beltran of a copy of this Decision. He shall inform this Court and the Of ce of the Bar
Con dant in writing of the date he received a copy of this Decision. Copies of this
Decision shall be furnished the Of ce of the Bar Con dant, to be appended to
respondent's personal record, and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. The Of ce of
the Court Administrator is directed to circulate copies of this Decision to all courts
concerned. aTHCSE

SO ORDERED.
Leonardo-de Castro, Del Castillo, Perlas-Bernabe and Caguioa, JJ., concur.
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 1, 3.
2. Id. at 4.
3. Id.

4. Id. at 3-4.
5. Id. at 101-107.
6. Id. at 137-141; the RTC Order dated 20 May 2002 was penned by Judge Novelita Villegas-
Llaguno, Branch 22, Naga City.
7. Id. at 152; RTC Order dated 20 June 2002, p. 2.
8. Id. at 248; Motion to Withdraw as Counsel for Plaintiffs dated 13 May 2002.
9. Id. at 141; RTC Order dated 20 May 2002, p. 5.

10. Id.
11. Id. at 1-2, 16-20, 87-100; letter led on 23 August 2002, Reply to Comment led on 29
January 2003, Memorandum filed on 16 July 2003.
12. Id. at 7-16, 56-60, 160-172, 255-263; Comment led on 7 January 2003, Rejoinder to Reply
to Comment with Notice of Change of Address led on 5 March 2003, Memorandum for
the Respondent led on 4 August 2003, Comment on the Memorandum for the
Complainant filed on 18 August 2003.
13. Id. at 9; Comment filed on 7 January 2003, p. 3.
14. Id. at 27.

15. Id. at 311-326.

16. Id. at 320-321.
17. This amount represented the balance between the P7,000 he received from complainants
for the payment of docket fees and the P1,722 he actually paid as docket fees to the
Clerk of Court.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2017 cdasiaonline.com

 18. Rollo, p. 310.

19. Id. at 331; Report for Agenda of the Office of the Bar Confidant dated 10 August 2015.
20. Spouses Williams v. Enriquez, A.C. No. 7329, 27 November 2013, 710 SCRA 620, 629.
21. 349 Phil. 1 (1998).
22. Fernandez v. Novero, Jr., 441 Phil. 506 (2002).
23. See Macarilay v. Seriña, 497 Phil. 348 (2005).

24. Francisco v. Portugal, 519 Phil. 547 (2006); Heirs of Ballesteros, Sr. v. Apiag, 508 Phil. 113
(2005); Dizon v. Laurente, 507 Phil. 572 (2005); Ferrer v. Tebelin, 500 Phil. 1 (2005); and
Consolidated Farms, Inc. v. Alpon, Jr., 493 Phil. 16 (2005).
25. 362 Phil. 219 (1999).

26. Supra note 22.

27. 479 Phil. 692 (2004).
28. 699 Phil. 419 (2012).
29. In re: Cunanan, 94 Phil. 534 (1954) citing the Opinion of the Justices to the Senate Supreme
Judicial Courts of Massachusetts, 180 N.E. 725, 727 (1932).
30. Tiburdo v. Puno, A.C. No. 10677, 18 April 2016.
31. Rollo, pp. 152-153; RTC Order dated 20 June 2002, pp. 2-3.

32. Sultan v. Macabanding, A.C. No. 7919, 8 October 2014, 737 SCRA 530.
33. De Jesus v. Risos-Vidal, 730 Phil. 47 (2014).
34. Bucad v. Frias, A.C. No. 11068, 6 April 2016.
35. Rollo, pp. 285-288; TSN, 26 June 2003, pp. 20-23.
36. See Union Motor Corp. v. Court of Appeals, 414 Phil. 33 (2001).

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2017 cdasiaonline.com