Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Eduardo De Vera
HELD: Yes. What he did is grossly unethical and filled with ill-
motive. It is the duty of the Supreme Court to remove from the
profession a person whose misconduct has proved him unfit to be
entrusted with the duties and responsibilities belonging to an office
of an attorney, and thus to protect the public and those charged with
the administration of justice, rather than to punish the attorney.
The authorization was put into writing but no mention was made as
regards the 10% fee, (in short, that part was not written in the
written authorization released by UBI). Peña was able to settle and
relocate the tenants. After everything was settled and the property
is now formally under the possession of UBI, Peña began sending
demands to UBI for the latter to pay him the P24 million fee agreed
upon, plus his expenses for the relocation of the tenants and the
hiring of security guards or an additional P3 million. But UBI
refused to make payment hence Peña filed a complaint for recovery
against UBI.
The trial court ruled in favor of Peña as it found there indeed was a
contract of agency created between and UBI and that Peña is
entitled to the 10% fee plus the expenses he incurred including
litigation expenses. In sum, the trial court awarded him P28
million.
The Court of Appeals however reversed the order of the trial court.
It ruled that no agency was formed but for his legal services, Peña is
entitled to payment but applying the principle of unjust enrichment
and quantum meruit, Peña should only be paid P3 million.
But does this also mean that he can automatically resume his
practice of law right after reacquisition?
No. Dacanay must still comply with several conditions before he can
resume his practice of law, to wit:
(d) the retaking of the lawyer’s oath which will not only remind
him of his duties and responsibilities as a lawyer and as an officer
of the Court, but also renew his pledge to maintain allegiance to the
Republic of the Philippines.
Compliance with these conditions will restore his good standing as
a member of the Philippine bar.
Being the Officer of the Court, he must have known that meeting
litigants outside the court issomething beyond the bounds of the
rule and that it can never be justified by any reason.By his overtact
in arranging the meeting between Judge Dizon and complainants-
litigants in the Coffee Shop of theEast Royal Hotel, it is crystal clear
that he must have allowed himself and consented to Judge
Dizon'sdesire to ask money from the complainants-litigants for a
favorable decision of their case which waspending before the sala of
Judge Dizon.
FACTS
ISSUES
RULING
:On the first issue, the Court ruled that the failure to file a
brief resulting to the dismissal of an appeal constitutes
inexcusablenegligence. This default and his failureto inform his
client of thestatus of the casetranslates to a violation of Canon 18 of
the Codeof Professional Responsibility, which states,
MANUEL C. YUHICO v. ATTY. FRED L. GUTIERREZ
EN BANC
ISSUE: