You are on page 1of 1

LIKONG V LIM

Facts:

Petitioner, Cerina Likong, filed an administrative case against respondent, Alexander


Lim, seeking for the latters disbarment for alleged malpractice and grave misconduct.
Petitioner obtained a loan of P92,000 from Geesnell Yap and executed a promissory
note in favor of Yap and a deed of assignment, assigning to the latter pension checks
she receives from the US Govt.
Petitioner also executed a special power of attorney authorizing Yap to get, demand,
collect and receive pension checks from the post office at Tagbilaran City. The above
documents were apparently prepared and notarized by respondent, Lim, Yaps counsel.
About 3 months after the execution of the SPA, petitioner informed the post office that
she was revoking the SPA.
Yap then filed a complaint for injunction against petitioner.
Respondent appeared as a counsel for Yap, while Atty Roland Inting and Atty Enrico
Aumentado appeared for the petitioner.
Petitioner and Yap filed a joint motion to allow Yap to withdraw the pension checks. This
motion does not bear the signatures of petitioners counsel but only the signatures of
both parties, assisted by respondent.
Petitioner and Yap entered into a compromise agreement again without the participation
of the formers counsel.
The compromise agreement stated that petitioner admitted an obligation to Yap of
P150,000 and that the amount would be paid in monthly installments for 54 months at an
interest of 40% per annum discounted every 6 months.
Petitioner filed the present disbarment case based on the following allegations:
o In all the motions, she was prevented from seeking assistance, advise and
signature of any of her lawyers; no copy was furnished to either one of them
o She was advised by the respondent that it was not necessary for her to consult
with her lawyers
o She had been prevented from exhibiting fully her case by means of fraud
o Respondent fraudulently and without authority assumed to represent her and
connived in her defeat
Respondent answered stating that petitioners counsels abandoned their client

Issue: WON Respondent Lim is guilty of misconduct under CPR

Held: YES.
It is worth noting that the terms of the compromise agreement are indeed grossly loaded
in favor of Yap.
There was no proof that respondent tried to inform the opposing counsel of the
compromise agreement, nor did he try to inform the court of the alleged abandonment of
petitioner by her counsel.
Respondent saw an opportunity to take advantage of the situation, and the result was
the execution of the compromise agreement, which was grossly and patently
disadvantageous and prejudicial to petitioner.

Suspended from the practice of law for 1 year.