Cerina B. Likong vs. Atty. Alexander H. Lim, A.C. No. 3149, August 17, 1994 FACTS: Complainant Cerina B.

Likong executed a deed of assignment assigning to Geesnell L. Yap pension checks which she regularly
receives from the US government as a widow of a US pensioner. The deed of assignment states that the
same shall be irrevocable until her loan is fully paid. Cerina likewise executed a special power of
attorney authorizing Yap to get her pension checks from the post office. About three months after the
execution of the SPA, Cerina informed the post office that she was revoking the SPA. Yap filed a
complaint for injunction against Cerina. Respondent Alexander H. Lim appeared as counsel for Yap while
Attys. Roland B. Inting and Erico B. Aumentado appeared for Cerina. Cerina and Yap filed a joint motion,
which does not bear the signatures of Cerina's counsel, to allow the Yap to withdraw the pension
checks. They likewise entered into a compromise agreement without the participation of Cerina's
counsel. In the compromise agreement, it was stated that complainant Cerina admitted an obligation to
Yap and that they agreed that the amount would be paid in monthly installments. Cerina filed a
complaint for disbarment, alleging that in all the motions, she was prevented from seeking assistance,
advise and signature of any of her two lawyers as she was advised by Atty. Lim that it was not necessary
for her to consult her lawyers under the pretense that: (a) this could only jeopardize the settlement; (b)
she would only be incurring enormous expense if she consulted a new lawyer; (c) respondent was
assisting her anyway; (d) she had nothing to worry about the documents Foisted upon her to sign; (e)
complainant need not come to court afterwards to save her time; and in any event respondent already
took care of everything. She alleged that she was prevented from exhibiting fully her case by means of
fraud, deception and some other form of mendacity practiced on her by Atty. Lim who, fraudulently or
without authority, assumed to represent complainant and connived in her defeat. Atty. Lim argued that
Cerina‘s counsel had abandoned her and it was upon her request that he made the compromise
agreement. Atty. Lim states that he first instructed Cerina to notify her lawyers but was informed that
her lawyer had abandoned her since she could not pay his attorney's fees. The compromise agreement
prepared by respondent increased Cerina‘s debt to Yap and the terms contained therein are grossly
prejudicial to Cerina. ISSUE/S: WON Atty. Lim is guilty of misconduct under the Code of Professional
Responsibility. HELD: Yes. Atty. Lim was suspended from the practice of law for 1 year for violating Rule
8.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, constituting malpractice and grave misconduct. RATIO:
Atty. Lim prevented Cerina from informing her lawyers by giving her the reasons enumerated in the
complaint. There is no showing that Atty.

Lim even tried to inform opposing counsel of the compromise agreement. Neither is there any showing
that Atty. Lim informed the trial court of the alleged abandonment of Cerina by her counsel.Instead,
even assuming that she was really abandoned by her counsel, Atty. Lim saw an opportunity to take
advantage of the situation, and the result was the execution of the compromise agreement which is
grossly and patently disadvantageous and prejudicial to Cerina. Undoubtedly, Atty. Lim's conduct is
unbecoming a member of the legal profession. The Code of Professional Responsibility states: Rule 8.02
— A lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly, encroach upon the professional employment of another
lawyer; however, it is the right of any lawyer, without fear or favor, to give proper advice and assistance
to those seeking relief against unfaithful or neglectful counsel.