A.C. No. 5829 October 28, 2003 - DANIEL LEMOINE v. AMADEO E. BALON, JR. - October 2003 - Philipppine Supreme Court Decisions

7/21/2021 A.C. No. 5829 October 28, 2003 - DANIEL LEMOINE v. AMADEO E. BALON, JR.
BALON, JR. : October 2003 - Philipppine Supreme Court Decisions
US Visa Revoked?
Confused About Your Options?
AHLO's attorney may be able to explain your current options and pricing is
transparent.
ahlo.app OPEN
Home Law Firm Law Library Laws Jurisprudence
October 2003 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court

Jurisprudence
Search

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2003 >

October 2003 Decisions >
A.C. No. 5829 October 28, 2003
ChanRobles - DANIEL LEMOINE v. AMADEO E. BALON, JR.:
Professional Review,
Inc.

EN BANC
https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2003octoberdecisions.php?id=1030 1/25
7/21/2021 A.C. No. 5829 October 28, 2003 - DANIEL LEMOINE v. AMADEO E. BALON, JR. : October 2003 - Philipppine Supreme Court Decisions
[A.C. No. 5829. October 28, 2003.]
DANIEL LEMOINE, Complainant, v. ATTY. AMADEO E.

BALON, JR., Respondent.
DECISION

PER CURIAM:

ChanRobles On-Line

Bar Review
On December 17, 1999, complainant Daniel Lemoine, a

French national, filed a verified complaint 1 against

respondent Atty. Amadeo E. Balon, Jr., for estafa and
misconduct before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.
The case, docketed as CBD Case No. 99-679, was referred
by the Commission on Bar Discipline to an Investigator for
investigation, report and recommendation.
chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary
The facts that spawned the filing of the complaint are as

follows:
chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
In early 1998, complainant filed a car insurance claim with

the Metropolitan Insurance Company (Metropolitan
Insurance), the insurer of his vehicle which was lost. As
ChanRobles CPA
complainant encountered problems in pursuing his claim
Review Online
which was initially rejected, 2 his friend, a certain Jesus

"Jess" Garcia (Garcia), arranged for the engagement of
respondent’s services.
By letter 3 of October 21, 1998 addressed to Elde

Management, Inc., "ATTN: Mr. Daniel Lemoine," under
whose care complainant could be reached, respondent
advised complainant, whom he had not before met, that for
his legal services he was charging "25% of the actual
amount being recovered . . . payable upon successful
recovery;" an advance payment of P50,000.00 "to be
charged [to complainant] to be deducted from whatever
amount [would] be successfully collected;" P1,000.00 "as

appearance and conference fee for each and every court
hearings, conferences outside our law office and meetings
before the Office of the Insurance Commission which will be
also charged to our 25% recovery fee;" and legal expenses
"such as but not limited to filing fee, messengerial and
postage expenses . . . and other miscellaneous but related
expenses," to be charged to complainant’s account which
would be reimbursed upon presentation statement of
account.
The letter-proposal of respondent regarding attorney’s fees

does not bear complainant’s conformity, he not having
agreed therewith.
ChanRobles Special
It appears that Metropolitan Insurance finally offered to
Lecture Series
settle complainant’s claim, for by letter 4 of December 9,

1998 addressed to it, respondent confirmed his acceptance

of its offer to settle the claim of complainant "in an ex-
gratia basis of 75% of his policy coverage which is therefore
FIVE HUNDRED TWENTY FIVE THOUSAND (P525,000.00)
PESOS."
cralaw virtua1aw library
A day or a few days before December 23, 1998 when

complainant left for France, 5 he, on the advice of
respondent, signed an already prepared undated Special
Power of Attorney 6 authorizing respondent and/or Garcia
to bring any action against Metropolitan Insurance for the
satisfaction of complainant’s claim as well as to "negotiate,
sign, compromise[,] encash and receive payment" from it.
The Special Power of Attorney was later dated December
23, 1998 on which same date Metropolitan Insurance
issued a Chinabank Check No. 841172 payable to
complainant in the amount of P525,000.00 as full
settlement of the claim. 7 The check was received by
Respondent.
In the meantime, complainant returned to the Philippines in

early January 1999 but left again on the 24th of the same
month. 8 On inquiry about the status of his claim, Garcia
echoed to complainant what respondent had written him
(Garcia) in respondent’s letter 9 of March 26, 1999 that the

claim was still pending with Metropolitan Insurance and that
it was still subject of negotiations in which Metropolitan
Insurance offered to settle it for P350,000.00 representing
fifty percent thereof. In the same letter to Garcia,
respondent suggested the acceptance of the offer of
settlement to avoid a protracted litigation.
ArbitrationOn&
December 6, 1999, on complainant’s personal visit to
the office of Metropolitan Insurance, he was informed that
Legal services
his claim had long been settled via a December 23, 1998
check given to respondent the year before. 10 Complainant
lost no time in going to the law office of respondent who
was not around, however, but whom he was able to talk by
telephone during which he demanded that he turn over the
proceeds of his claim. 11
Tourism, energy sector,
trade of commodities
Respondent thereupon faxed to complainant a December 7,

& investments.1999 letter 12 wherein he acknowledged having in his
possession the proceeds of the encashed check which he
retained, however, as attorney’s lien pending complainant’s
payment of his attorney’s fee, equivalent to fifty percent
(50%) of the entire amount collected. In the same letter,
respondent protested what he branded as the "uncivilized
and unprofessional behavior" complainant "reportedly
demonstrated" at respondent’s office. Respondent winded
up his letter as follows, quoted verbatim:
We would like to make it clear that we cannot give you the

aforesaid amount until and unless our attorney’s fees will
be forthwith agreed and settled. In the same manner,
should you be barbaric and uncivilized with your
Arbitrationapproached,
&
we will not hesitate to make a proper
representation with the Bureau of Immigration and
Legal services
Deportation for the authenticity of your visa, Department of
Labor and Employment for your working status, Bureau of
Internal Revenue for your taxation compliance and the
National Bureau of Investigation [with] which we have a
good network . . .
Tourism, energy sector,
While it [is your] prerogative to file a legal action against

& investments.us, it is also our prerogative to file a case against you. We
will rather suggest if you could request your lawyer to just
confer with us for the peaceful settlement of this matter.
(Italics and Emphasis supplied)
As despite written demands, 13 respondent refused to turn

over the proceeds of the insurance claim and to
acknowledge the unreasonableness of the attorney’s fees
he was demanding, complainant instituted the
administrative action at bar on December 17, 1999.
US Visa

In his Complaint-Affidavit, complainant alleged that" [i]t

Revoked? appears that there was ‘irregularity’ with the check," it
having been issued payable to him, but "and/or AMADEO
Confused About Your
BALON" was therein intercalated after his (complainant’s)

Options?
name. 14
AHLO's attorney may

be
able to explain your
Maintaining that respondent was entitled to only

current options and
P50,000.00 in attorney’s fees, 15 complainant decried
pricing is transparent.
respondent’s continued possession of the proceeds of his
claim 16 and his misrepresentations that the recovery
ahlo.app thereof was fraught with difficulties. 17
In his Counter-Affidavit 18 of February 18, 2000,

respondent asserted that his continued retention of the
proceeds of complainant’s claim is in lawful exercise of his
OPEN lien for unpaid attorney’s fees. He expressed readiness,

however, to account for and turn them over once he got
paid fifty percent (50%) thereof, he citing the so called
contingent fee billing method of "no cure, no pay" adopted
by practicing lawyers in the insurance industry as the basis
of the amount of his attorney’s fees, 19 which to him was
justified in the absence of an attorney-client contract
between him and complainant, the latter having rejected
respondent’s letter-proposal of October 21, 1998. 20
Respondent also highlighted the value of the time and

efforts he extended in pursuing complainant’s claim and the
expenses he incurred in connection therewith. He went on
to assert that his inability to contact complainant whose
whereabouts he did not know prompted him to encash the

check and keep the proceeds thereof in conformity with the
Special Power of Attorney executed in his favor. 21
During the hearings conducted by the IBP Investigator,

complainant echoed his allegations in his Complaint-
Affidavit and stressed that he turned down as unreasonable
respondent’s proposal in his October 21, 1998 letter that he
be paid 25% of the actual amount collected for his legal
services. 22 And he presented documentary evidence,
including the March 26, 1999 letter of respondent informing
his co-attorney-in-fact Garcia of the supposedly still
unrecovered claim and suggesting acceptance of the
purported offer of Metropolitan Insurance to settle
complainant’s claim at P350,000.00.
Explaining how his above-mentioned March 26, 1999 letter

to Garcia came about, respondent declared that it was
made upon Garcia’s request, intended for a certain Joel
Ramiscal (Ramiscal) who was said to be Garcia’s business
partner. 23
Respondent later submitted a June 13, 2001 Supplement

24 to his Counter-Affidavit reiterating his explanation that it
was on Garcia’s express request that he wrote the March
26, 1999 letter, which was directed to the fax number of
Ramiscal.
Additionally, respondent declared that in the first week of

May 1999, on the representation of Garcia that he had
talked to complainant about respondent’s retention of fifty
percent (50%) of the insurance proceeds for professional
fees less expenses, 25 he gave Garcia, on a staggered
basis, the total amount of P233,000.00 which, so
respondent averred, is the amount of insurance claim
complainant is entitled to receive less attorney’s fees and
expenses. 26 Thus, respondent claimed that he gave Garcia
the amount of P30,000.00 on May 31, 1999 at Dulcinea
Restaurant in Greenbelt, Makati; the amounts of
P50,000.00, P20,000.00 and P30,000.00 on different
occasions at his (respondent’s) former address through his

executive secretary Sally I. Leonardo; the amount of
P20,000.00 at the office of his (respondent’s) former
employer Commonwealth Insurance Company through his
subordinate Glen V. Roxas; and several other payments at
Dulcinea, and at Manila Intercontinental Hotel’s coffee shop
sometime in October 1999. 27 Respondent submitted the
separate sworn statements of Leonardo and Roxas. 28
Explaining why no written memorandum of the turn over of

various payments to Garcia was made, respondent alleged
that there was no need therefor since he very well knew
Garcia who is a co-Rotarian and co-attorney-in-fact and
whom he really dealt with regarding complainant’s claim.
29
Respondent furthermore declared that he rejected

complainant’s offer to pay him P50,000.00 for his services,
insisting that since there had been no clear-cut agreement
on his professional fees and it was through him that
Metropolitan Insurance favorably reconsidered its initial
rejection of complainant’s claim, he is entitled to a
contingent fee of 50% of the net proceeds thereof. 30
Finally, respondent declared that he, in connection with his

follow-up of the insurance claim, incurred representation
expenses of P35,000.00, entertainment and other
representation expenses on various occasions of
P10,000.00, and transportation and gasoline expenses and
parking fees of P5,000.00; 31 and that his retention of
complainant’s money was justified in light of his
apprehension that complainant, being an alien without a
valid working permit in the Philippines, might leave the
country anytime without settling his professional fees. 32
The Investigating Commissioner, by Report and

Recommendation 33 of October 26, 2001, found respondent
guilty of misconduct and recommended that he be
disbarred and directed to immediately turn over to
complainant the sum of P475,000.00 representing the
amount of the P525,000.00 insurance claim less
respondent’s professional fees of P50,000.00, as proposed

by complainant.

The Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the

Philippines, acting on the Investigator’s Report, issued
Resolution No. XV-2002-401 34 on August 3, 2002,
reading:
RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby

ADOPTED and APPROVED, the Report and Recommendation
of the Investigating Commissioner of the above-entitled
case, herein made part of this Resolution/Decision as Annex
"A" ; and, finding the recommendation fully supported by
the evidence on record and the applicable laws and rules,
with modification, and considering respondent’s dishonesty
which amounted to grave misconduct and grossly unethical
behavior which caused dishonor, not merely to respondent
but the noble profession to which he belongs, Respondent is
hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for six (6)
months with the directive to turn over the amount of Five
Hundred Twenty Five Thousand. (P525,000.00) Pesos to the
complainant without prejudice to respondent’s right to claim
attorney’s fees which he may collect in the proper forum.
(Emphasis supplied)

The records of the case are before this Court for final
October-2003 action.
Jurisprudence

Respondent, by a Motion for Reconsideration 35 filed with

this Court, assails the Investigating Commissioner’s Report
A.M. No. P-02-1548 and Recommendation as not supported by clear, convincing
October 1, 2003 - and satisfactory proof. He prays for the reopening of the
ROBERT E. VILLAROS v. case and its remand to the Investigator so that Garcia can
RODOLFO ORPIANO personally appear for his (respondent’s) confrontation.
A.M. Nos. P-03-1697 There is no need for a reopening of the case. The facts
& P-03-1699 October 1, material to its resolution are either admitted or
2003 - JOCELYN S. documented.
PAISTE v. APRONIANO
V. MAMENTA This Court is in full accord with the findings of the IBP

G.R. Nos. 133066- Investigator that respondent violated the following

67 October 1, 2003 - provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility, to
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. wit:
v. ROMEO H. LAMBID

RULE 1.01 — A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful,
G.R. No. 137554 dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
October 1, 2003 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. x x x

v. JOHN MAMARION, ET
AL.

CANON 15 — A lawyer shall observe candor, fairness and
G.R. No. 148198 loyalty in all his dealings and transactions with his clients.
October 1, 2003 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. RULE 15.06 — A lawyer shall not state or imply that he is
v. ELIZABETH CORPUZ able to influence any public official, tribunal or legislative

body.
G.R. Nos. 150630-
31 October 1, 2003 - x x x

PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. JAIME OLAYBAR

CANON 16 — A lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and
G.R. No. 152176 properties of his client that may come into his possession.
October 1, 2003 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. RULE 16.01 — A lawyer shall account for all money or
v. ROGER D. DELA property collected or received for or from the client.
CRUZ

RULE 16.02 — A lawyer shall keep the funds of each client
G.R. No. 154130 separate and apart from his own and those of others kept
October 1, 2003 - by him.
BENITO ASTORGA v.
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. RULE 16.03 — A lawyer shall deliver the funds and property

of his client when due or upon demand. However, he shall
G.R. No. 156034 have a lien over the funds and may apply so much thereof
October 1, 2003 - as may be necessary to satisfy his lawful fees and
DELSAN TRANSPORT disbursements, giving notice promptly thereafter to his
LINES, INC. v. C & A client. He shall also have a lien to the same extent on all
CONSTRUCTION, INC. judgments and executions he has secured for his client as

provided for in the Rules of Court.
A.M. No. RTJ-03-
1803 October 2, 2003 - x x x

VICTOR A. ASLARONA
v. ANTONIO T.
ECHAVEZ

CANON 17 — A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his
G.R. No. 128882 client and he shall be mindful of the trust and confidence in
October 2, 2003 - him.
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. JOEL AYUDA x x x

G.R. No. 145337
October 2, 2003 - RULE 18.04 — A lawyer shall keep the client informed of
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. the status of his case and shall respond within a reasonable
v. LEE HOI MING time to the client’s request for information.
G.R. No. 150382 x x x

October 2, 2003 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. EDDIE BASITE RULE 21.02 — A lawyer shall not, to the disadvantage of his

client, use information acquired in the course of
A.C. No. 6061 employment, nor shall he use the same to his advantage or
October 3, 2003 - RAUL that of a third person, unless the client with full knowledge
C. SANCHEZ v. of the circumstances consents thereto.
SALUSTINO SOMOSO

Specifically with respect to above-quoted provision of
A.M. MTJ-00-1311 Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, the
October 3, 2003 - Filipino lawyer’s principal source of ethical rules, which
SILVESTRE H. BELLO Canon 16 bears on the principal complaint of complainant,
III v. AUGUSTUS C. a lawyer must hold in trust all moneys and properties of his
DIAZ, ET AL. client that he may come to possess. This commandment

entails certain specific acts to be done by a lawyer such as
A.M. No. P-02-1547 rendering an accounting of all money or property received
October 3, 2003 - for or from the client 36 as well as delivery of the funds or
LEOPOLDO V. CAÑETE property to the client when due or upon demand. 37
v. NELSON MANLOSA Respondent breached this Canon when after he received

the proceeds of complainant’s insurance claim, he did not
A.M. No. P-02-1550 report it to complainant, who had a given address in
October 3, 2003 - Makati, or to his co-attorney-in-fact Garcia who was his
AMELIA L. contact with respect to complainant.
AVELLANOSA v. JOSE
Z. CAMASO In fact, long after respondent received the December 23,

1998 check for P525,000.00 he, by his letter of March 26,
1999 to Garcia, had even the temerity to state that the
G.R. No. 118375 claim was still pending and recommend "acceptance of the
October 3, 2003 - 50% offer . . . which is P350,000.00 pesos." His
CELESTINA T. NAGUIAT explanation that he prepared and sent this letter on
v. COURT OF APPEALS, Garcia’s express request is nauseating. A lawyer, like
ET AL. respondent, would not and should not commit

prevarication, documented at that, on the mere request of
G.R. No. 122134 a friend.
October 3, 2003 -
ROMANA LOCQUIAO By respondent’s failure to promptly account for the funds

VALENCIA, ET AL. v. he received and held for the benefit of his client, he
BENITO A. LOCQUIAO, committed professional misconduct. 38 Such misconduct is
ET AL. reprehensible at a greater degree, for it was obviously done

on purpose through the employment of deceit to the
G.R. No. 143388 prejudice of complainant who was kept in the dark about
October 6, 2003 - SPS. the release of the check, until he himself discovered the
ROLANDO and ROSITA same, and has to date been deprived of the use of the
CRUZ v. COURT OF proceeds thereof.
APPEALS, ET AL.

A lawyer who practices or utilizes deceit in his dealings with
G.R. No. 146569 his client not only violates his duty of fidelity, loyalty and
October 6, 2003 - devotion to the client’s cause but also degrades himself and
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. besmirches the fair name of an honorable profession. 39
v. JOHN NEQUIA

That respondent had a lien on complainant’s funds for his
A.M. Nos. P-03- attorney’s fees did not relieve him of his duty to account for
1744–45 October 7, it. 40 The lawyer’s continuing exercise of his retaining lien
2003 - FE ALBANO presupposes that the client agrees with the amount of
MADRID v. ANTONIO T. attorney’s fees to be charged. In case of disagreement or
QUEBRAL when the client contests that amount for being

unconscionable, however, the lawyer must not arbitrarily
G.R. No. 135377 apply the funds in his possession to the payment of his
October 7, 2003 - DSR- fees. 41 He can file, if he still deems it desirable, the
SENATOR LINES, ET AL. necessary action or proper motion with the proper court to
v. FEDERAL PHOENIX fix the amount of such fees. 42
ASSURANCE CO., INC.

In respondent’s case, he never had the slightest attempt to
G.R. No. 149453 bring the matter of his compensation for judicial
October 7, 2003 - determination so that his and complainant’s sharp
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., disagreement thereon could have been put to an end.
ET AL. v. PANFILO M. Instead, respondent stubbornly and in bad faith held on to
LACSON complainant’s funds with the obvious aim of forcing

complainant to agree to the amount of attorney’s fees
G.R. No. 149717 sought. This is an appalling abuse by respondent of the
October 7, 2003 - exercise of an attorney’s retaining lien which by no means
EASTERN ASSURANCE is an absolute right and cannot at all justify inordinate delay
& SURETY CORP. v. in the delivery of money and property to his client when
LTFRB due or upon demand.
G.R. No. 155258 Respondent was, before receiving the check, proposing a
October 7, 2003 - 25% attorney’s fees. After he received the check and after
CONRADO S. CANO v. complainant had discovered its release to him, he was
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. already asking for 50%, objection to which complainant

communicated to him. Why respondent had to doubly
A.C. No. 4881 increase his fees after the lapse of about one year when all
October 8, 2003 - RAU the while he has been in custody of the proceeds of the
SHENG MAO v. check defies comprehension. At any rate, it smacks of
ANGELES A. VELASCO opportunism, to say the least.
G.R. No. 120864 As for respondent’s claim in his June 2001, Supplement to
October 8, 2003 - his Counter-Affidavit that he had on several occasions from
MANUEL T. DE GUIA v. May 1999 to October 1999 already delivered a total of
COURT OF APPEALS, ET P233,000.00 out of the insurance proceeds to Garcia in
AL. trust for complainant, this does not persuade, for it is bereft

of any written memorandum thereof. It is difficult to believe
G.R. No. 136845 that a lawyer like respondent could have entrusted such
October 8, 2003 - total amount of money to Garcia without documenting it,
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. especially at a time when, as respondent alleged, he and
v. GUILLERMO Garcia were not in good terms. 43 Not only that. As stated
FLORENDO earlier, respondent’s Counter-Affidavit of February 18, 2000

and his December 7, 1999 letter to complainant
G.R. No. 145166 unequivocally contained his express admission that the
October 8, 2003 - total amount of P525,000.00 was in his custody. Such
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. illogical, futile attempt to exculpate himself only aggravates
v. ALBERTO ROMERO, his misconduct. Respondent’s claim discredited, the
ET AL. affidavits of Leonardo and Roxas who, acting allegedly for

him, purportedly gave Garcia some amounts forming part
G.R. No. 146118 of the P233,000.00 are thus highly suspect and merit no
October 8, 2003 - consideration.
SAMUEL SAMARCA v.
ARC-MEN INDUSTRIES, The proven ancillary charges against respondent reinforce

INC. the gravity of his professional misconduct.
G.R. Nos. 148056-
61 October 8, 2003 - The intercalation of respondent’s name to the Chinabank

PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. check that was issued payable solely in favor of
v. JOSE DE CASTRO complainant as twice certified by Metropolitan Insurance 44

is clearly a brazen act of falsification of a commercial
G.R. No. 149420 document which respondent resorted to in order to encash
October 8, 2003 - the check.
SONNY LO v. KJS ECO-
FORMWORK SYSTEM Respondent’s threat in his December 7, 1999 letter to

PHIL., INC. expose complainant to possible sanctions from certain

government agencies with which he bragged to have a
G.R. No. 152776 "good network" reflects lack of character, self-respect, and
October 8, 2003 - justness.
HENRY S. OAMINAL v.
PABLITO M. CASTILLO, It bears noting that for close to five long years respondent
ET AL. has been in possession of complainant’s funds in the

amount of over half a million pesos. The deceptions and lies
G.R. No. 153751 that he peddled to conceal, until its discovery by
October 8, 2003 - MID complainant after about a year, his receipt of the funds and
PASIG LAND his tenacious custody thereof in a grossly oppressive
DEVELOPMENT CORP. v. manner point to his lack of good moral character. Worse, by
COURT OF APPEALS, ET respondent’s turnaround in his Supplement to his Counter-
AL. Affidavit that he already delivered to complainant’s friend

Garcia the amount of P233,000.00 which, so respondent
G.R. No. 154579 claims, is all that complainant is entitled to, he in effect has
October 8, 2003 - MA. declared that he has nothing more to turn over to
LOURDES R. DE complainant. Such incredible position is tantamount to a
GUZMAN v. PEOPLE OF refusal to remit complainant’s funds, and gives rise to the
THE PHIL. conclusion that he has misappropriated them. 45
A.M. No. P-96-1179 In fine, by respondent’s questioned acts, he has shown that
October 10, 2003 - he is no longer fit to remain a member of the noble
WINSTON C. CASTELO profession that is the law.
v. CRISTOBAL C.
FLORENDO WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Amadeo E. Balon, Jr., is

found GUILTY of malpractice, deceit and gross misconduct
G.R. No. 110604 in the practice of his profession as a lawyer and he is
October 10, 2003 - hereby DISBARRED. The Office of the Clerk of Court is
BUENAVENTURA S. directed to strike out his name from the Roll of Attorneys
TENORIO, ET AL. v. and to inform all courts and the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines of this Decision.
COURT OF APPEALS, ET
AL. Respondent is ordered to turn over to complainant, Daniel

Lemoine, the amount of P525,000.00 within thirty (30)
G.R. No. 140917 days from notice, without prejudice to whatever judicial
October 10, 2003 - action he may take to recover his attorney’s fees and
MENELIETO A. OLANDA purported expenses incurred in securing the release thereof
v. LEONARDO G. from Metropolitan Insurance.
BUGAYONG, ET AL.

SO ORDERED.
A.M. No. P-02-1640
October 13, 2003 - Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Puno, Vitug, Panganiban,
SAAD ANJUM v. CESAR Quisumbing, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio, Austria-Martinez,
L. ABACAHIN, ET AL. Corona, Carpio Morales, Callejo, Sr., Azcuna and Tinga, JJ.,

concur.
G.R. No. 122765
October 13, 2003 - Ynares-Santiago, J., is on leave.
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. EDGARDO L.
VARGAS Endnotes:
G.R. No. 141942

1. Rollo at 1–4.
October 13, 2003 -

PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

2. Rollo at 46.
v. JIMMY PONCE

JAMON
3. Id. at 49–50.
G.R. No. 143842

4. Id. at 19.
October 13, 2003 -

PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

5. TSN, May 9, 2000, pp. 4–6.
v. MANGI L. ADAM

6. Rollo at 7–8.
G.R. No. 144662

October 13, 2003 -

7. Id. at 10.
SPS. EFREN AND

DIGNA MASON, ET AL.

8. TSN, May 9, 2000, p. 7.
v. COURT OF APPEALS,

ET AL.
9. Rollo at 67–68.
A.M. No. MTJ-02-

10. Rollo at 1.
1459 October 14, 2003

- IMELDA Y. MADERADA
v. ERNESTO H. 11. Rollo at 1 and 3.
MEDIODEA

12. Id. at 11–13.
A.M. No. P-03-1674
October 14, 2003 - 13. Id. at 20, 21, and 23.
PABLO B. FRANCISCO
v. OLIVIA M. LAUREL 14. Rollo at 3.
A.M. No. RTJ-03- 15. Id. at 2.
1805 October 14, 2003
- TEODORA A. RUIZ v. 16. Id. at 2-3.
ROLANDO G. HOW

17. Id. at 1 and 3.
G.R. No. 153157
October 14, 2003 - 18. Id. at 41–45.
PHILIPPINE AIRLINES
v. ARTHUR B. 19. Id. at 41 and 43.
TONGSON

20. Id. at 43.
A.M. No. RTJ-02-
1697 October 15, 2003 21. Rollo at 43.
- EUGENIO K. CHAN v.
JOSE S. MAJADUCON 22. TSN, May 9, 2000, pp. 12–13.
A.M. No. RTJ-02- 23. TSN, May 25, 2001, pp. 6–7.
1699 October 15, 2003
- VERNETTE UMALI- 24. Rollo at 88–92.
PACO, ET AL. v.
REINATO G. QUILALA, 25. Rollo at 89–90.
ET AL.

26. Id. at 88 and 90.
A.M. No. RTJ-03-
1808 October 15, 2003 27. Id. at 90.
- RADELIA SY, ET AL. v.
ANTONIO FINEZA 28. Id. at 95–96.
G.R. Nos. 123144, 29. Id. at 88 and 90.
123207 & 123536
October 15, 2003 - 30. Rollo at 90–91.
PABLO P. BURGOS, ET
AL. v. 31. Id. at 91.
SANDIGANBAYAN, ET
AL. 32. Id. at 90.
G.R. No. 126119 33. Rollo at 111–135.
October 15, 2003 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. 34. Id. at 109–110.
GILDO B. PELOPERO
PNP 35. Rollo at 137–159.
G.R. No. 130662 36. Code of Professional Responsibility, Rule

October 15, 2003 - 16.01.
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. SERGIO ABON 37. Id. at Rule 16.03.
G.R. No. 138364 38. Daroy v. Legaspi, 65 SCRA 304, 312 [1975].
October 15, 2003 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. 39. Agpalo, Comments on the Code of

v. ROGELIO Professional Responsibility and the Code of
VILLANUEVA Judicial Conduct, p. 410 [2001].
G.R. No. 142381 40. Tanhueco v. De Dumo, 172 SCRA 760

October 15, 2003 - [1989].
PHILIPPINE BLOOMING
MILLS, INC., ET AL. v. 41. J.K. Mercado and Sons Agricultural

COURT OF APPEALS, ET Enterprises, Inc. v. De Vera, 317 SC RA 339
AL. [1999].
G.R. No. 142595 42. Ibid.
October 15, 2003 -
RACHEL C. CELESTIAL 43. Rollo at 43.
v. JESSE CACHOPERO

44. Rollo at 18 and 102.
G.R. Nos. 148139-
43 October 15, 2003 - 45. Castillo v. Taguines, 254 SCRA 554 [1996].
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

v. HERMENIO CANOY

G.R. No. 156273

October 15, 2003 - Back to Home | Back to Main
HEIRS OF TIMOTEO
MORENO, ET AL. v.
MACTAN-CEBU INT’L.
AIRPORT AUTHORITY

A.M. No. SCC-00-6-

P October 16, 2003 -
RE: Ma. Corazon M.
Molo

A.M. No. P-02-1592

October 16, 2003 -
LUZITA ALPECHE v.
EXPEDITO B. BATO

G.R. No. 141074

October 16, 2003 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. NORLY LIBRADO

G.R. No. 144881

October 16, 2003 -
BETTY T. CHUA v.
ABSOLUTE MNGT.
CORP., ET AL.

G.R. Nos. 147650-

52 October 16, 2003 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. RODOLFO S. PEPITO

G.R. No. 152492

October 16, 2003 -
PALMA DEVELOPMENT
CORP. v. MUN. OF
MALANGAS

G.R. Nos. 153991-

92 October 16, 2003 -
ANWAR BERUA
BALINDONG v.
COMELEC, ET AL.

A.M. No. P-01-1475

October 17, 2003 -
MANUEL R. AQUINO v.
JOCELYN C.
FERNANDEZ

G.R. No. 131399

October 17, 2003 -
ANGELITA AMPARO GO
v. OFFICE OF THE
OMBUDSMAN, ET AL.

G.R. Nos. 133759-

60 October 17, 2003 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. LEONITO LORENZO

G.R. Nos. 148673-

75 October 17, 2003 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. FLORENCIO R.
ABANILLA

G.R. No. 150286

October 17, 2003 -
ELCEE FARMS, INC., ET
AL. v. PAMPILO
SEMILLANO, ET AL.

G.R. No. 142885

October 22, 2003 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. WILLIAM TIU, ET AL.

A.M. No. MTJ-01-

1368 October 23, 2003
- JOSE GODOFREDO M.
NAUI v. MARCIANO C.
MAURICIO, SR.

G.R. No. 120409

October 23, 2003 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. WILLIAMSON
PICKRELL, ET AL.

G.R. No. 120670

October 23, 2003 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. HEDISHI SUZUKI

G.R. No. 125689

October 23, 2003 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. ANTONIO
SATIOQUIA

G.R. No. 127153

October 23, 2003 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. SATUR G. APOSAGA

G.R. No. 132788

October 23, 2003 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. ISAIAS FERNANDEZ,
ET AL.

G.R. No. 134485

October 23, 2003 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. OSCAR PEREZ

G.R. Nos. 134573-

75 October 23, 2003 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. VICENTE BINARAO,
ET AL.

G.R. No. 136849

October 23, 2003 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

v. NESTOR A.
CODERES

G.R. No. 138456

October 23, 2003 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. ROLANDO P.
DEDUYO

G.R. No. 140247

October 23, 2003 -
ALEX ASUNCION, ET
AL. v. COURT OF
APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 143252

October 23, 2003 -
CEBU MARINE BEACH
RESORT, ET AL. v.
NLRC, ET AL.

G.R. Nos. 146368-

69 October 23, 2003 -
MADELEINE MENDOZA-
ONG v.
SANDIGANBAYAN, ET
AL.

G.R. No. 146608

October 23, 2003 -
SPS. CONSTANTE &
AZUCENA FIRME v.
BUKAL ENTERPRISES
AND DEV’T. CORP.

G.R. No. 147369

October 23, 2003 -
SPS. PATRICK and
RAFAELA JOSE v. SPS.
HELEN and ROMEO

BOYON

G.R. No. 147549

October 23, 2003 -
JESUS DELA ROSA, ET
AL. v. SANTIAGO
CARLOS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 149149

October 23, 2003 -
ERNESTO SYKI v.
SALVADOR BEGASA

G.R. No. 149725

October 23, 2003 -
OSCAR MAGNO v.
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

G.R. Nos. 150493-

95 October 23, 2003 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. CIRILO MACABATA

G.R. No. 150946

October 23, 2003 -
MUNICIPAL BOARD OF
CANVASSERS OF GLAN,
ET AL. v. COMELEC, ET
AL.

G.R. No. 152135

October 23, 2003 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. MARCOS GIALOLO,
ET AL.

G.R. No. 152716

October 23, 2003 -
ELNA MERCADO-FEHR
v. BRUNO FEHR
G.R. Nos. 154796-

97 October 23, 2003 -
RAYMUNDO A.
BAUTISTA v. COMELEC,
ET AL.

G.R. No. 155692

October 23, 2003 -
PHIVIDEC INDUSTRIAL
AUTHORITY, ET AL. v.
CAPITOL STEEL CORP.,
ET AL.

G.R. No. 155717

October 23, 2003 -
ALBERTO JARAMILLA v.
COMELEC, ET AL.

A.M. No. RTJ-00-

1586 October 24, 2003
- THELMA C. BALDADO
v. ARNULFO O. BUGTAS

G.R. No. 119775

October 24, 2003 -
JOHN HAY PEOPLES
ALTERNATIVE
COALITION, ET AL. v.
VICTOR LIM, ET AL.

G.R. No. 119847

October 24, 2003 -
JENNY ZACARIAS v.
NATIONAL POLICE
COMMISSION, ET AL.

G.R. No. 137597

October 24, 2003 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. JASON S. NAVARRO,
ET AL.

G.R. No. 141615

October 24, 2003 -
MAC ADAMS METAL
ENGINEERING
WORKERS UNION-
INDEPENDENT, ET AL.
v. MAC ADAMS METAL
ENGINEERING, ET AL.

G.R. No. 144439

October 24, 2003 -
SOUTHEAST ASIA
SHIPPING CORP. v.
SEAGULL MARITIME
CORP., ET AL.

G.R. No. 148120

October 24, 2003 -
RODRIGO QUIRAO, ET
AL. v. LYDIA QUIRAO,
ET AL.

G.R. No. 148597

October 24, 2003 -
GRACE F. MUNSAYAC-
DE VILLA, ET AL. v.
COURT OF APPEALS, ET
AL.

G.R. No. 152285

October 24, 2003 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. JOSE OBESO

G.R. Nos. 152589

and 152758 October
24, 2003 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO

MENDOZA

G.R. No. 153828

October 24, 2003 -
LINCOLN L. YAO v.
NORMA C. PERELLO, ET
AL.

G.R. No. 139181

October 27, 2003 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. JIMMY AQUINO

G.R. No. 143817

October 27, 2003 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. ALEJANDRO BAJAR

A.C. No. 5829

October 28, 2003 -
DANIEL LEMOINE v.
AMADEO E. BALON, JR.

A.M. No. P-02-1581

October 28, 2003 - MA.
CORAZON M. ANDAL v.
NICOLAS A. TONGA

G.R. No. 134563

October 28, 2003 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. FRANCISCO DALA

G.R. No. 138933

October 28, 2003 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. JERRYVIE D.
GUMAYAO

G.R. No. 150540

October 28, 2003 -
DIMALUB P. NAMIL, ET
AL. v. COMELEC, ET AL

G.R. No. 155206

October 28, 2003 -
GSIS v. EDUARDO M.
SANTIAGO

Copyright © 1995 - 2021 REDiaz

A.C. No. 5829 October 28, 2003 - DANIEL LEMOINE v. AMADEO E. BALON, JR. - October 2003 - Philipppine Supreme Court Decisions

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A.C. No. 5829 October 28, 2003 - DANIEL LEMOINE v. AMADEO E. BALON, JR. - October 2003 - Philipppine Supreme Court Decisions

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

7/21/2021 A.C. No. 5829 October 28, 2003 - DANIEL LEMOINE v. AMADEO E. BALON, JR.

BALON, JR. : October 2003 - Philipppine Supreme Court Decisions

Home Law Firm Law Library Laws Jurisprudence

October 2003 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions

Philippine Supreme Court

[A.C. No. 5829. October 28, 2003.]

DANIEL LEMOINE, Complainant, v. ATTY. AMADEO E.

On December 17, 1999, complainant Daniel Lemoine, a

French national, filed a verified complaint 1 against

chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

The facts that spawned the filing of the complaint are as

chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

In early 1998, complainant filed a car insurance claim with

which was initially rejected, 2 his friend, a certain Jesus

By letter 3 of October 21, 1998 addressed to Elde

The letter-proposal of respondent regarding attorney’s fees

settle complainant’s claim, for by letter 4 of December 9,

1998 addressed to it, respondent confirmed his acceptance

cralaw virtua1aw library

A day or a few days before December 23, 1998 when

In the meantime, complainant returned to the Philippines in

(Garcia) in respondent’s letter 9 of March 26, 1999 that the

Tourism, energy sector,

Respondent thereupon faxed to complainant a December 7,

chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

We would like to make it clear that we cannot give you the

Tourism, energy sector,

While it [is your] prerogative to file a legal action against

As despite written demands, 13 respondent refused to turn

In his Complaint-Affidavit, complainant alleged that" [i]t

BALON" was therein intercalated after his (complainant’s)

AHLO's attorney may

able to explain your

Maintaining that respondent was entitled to only

In his Counter-Affidavit 18 of February 18, 2000,

OPEN lien for unpaid attorney’s fees. He expressed readiness,

Respondent also highlighted the value of the time and

whereabouts he did not know prompted him to encash the

During the hearings conducted by the IBP Investigator,

Explaining how his above-mentioned March 26, 1999 letter

Respondent later submitted a June 13, 2001 Supplement

chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

Additionally, respondent declared that in the first week of

occasions at his (respondent’s) former address through his

Explaining why no written memorandum of the turn over of

Respondent furthermore declared that he rejected

Finally, respondent declared that he, in connection with his

The Investigating Commissioner, by Report and

respondent’s professional fees of P50,000.00, as proposed

The Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the

chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby

G.R. Nos. 133066- Investigator that respondent violated the following

chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. x x x

G.R. Nos. 150630-

31 October 1, 2003 - x x x

A.M. No. RTJ-03-

1803 October 2, 2003 - x x x

PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

v. JOEL AYUDA x x x

G.R. No. 145337

G.R. No. 150382 x x x