148. ALEX ONG vs. ATTY. ELPIDIO D.

UNTO

Adm. Case No. 2417. February 6, 2002

FACTS:

This is a disbarment case filed by Alex Ong against Atty. Elpidio D. Unto, for malpractice of law and
conduct unbecoming of a lawyer. It is evident from the records that he tried to coerce the complainant
to comply with his letter-demand by threatening to file various charges against the latter. When the
complainant did not heed his warning, he made good his threat and filed a string of criminal and
administrative cases against the complainant. They, however, did not have any bearing or connection to
the cause of his client, The records show that the respondent offered monetary rewards to anyone who
could provide him any information against the complainant just so he would have leverage in his actions
against the latter.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION:

Atty. Elpidio D. Unto is hereby declared guilty of conduct unbecoming of a lawyer. He is suspended from
the practice of law for a period of five (5) months and sternly warned that a repetition of the same or
similar act will be dealt with more severely.

DOCTRINE RELATED TO THE CANON:

The relevant rule to the case at bar is Canon 19 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. It mandates
lawyers to represent their clients with zeal but within the bounds of the law. Rule 19.01 further
commands that “a lawyer shall employ only fair and honest means to attain the lawful objectives of his
client and shall not present, participate or threaten to present unfounded criminal charges to obtain an
improper advantage in any case or proceeding.”

The ethics of the legal profession rightly enjoin lawyers to act with the highest standards of truthfulness,
fair play and nobility in the course of his practice of law. A lawyer may be disciplined or suspended for
any misconduct, whether in his professional or private capacity. Public confidence in law and lawyers
may be eroded by the irresponsible and improper conduct of a member of the Bar. Thus, every lawyer
should act and comport himself in such a manner that would promote public confidence in the integrity
of the legal profession.

149. TRINIDAD, ET.AL. vs. ATTY. ANGELITO VILLARIN A.C. No. 9310 February 27, 2013

FACTS:

Purence Realty Corporation and Roberto Bassig lost in a case of specific performace and was not
appealed thus it became final and executory decided by the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board
(HLURB). The HLURB ordered the owner and the developer to deliver the Deeds of Sale and the Transfer
Certificates of Title to the winning litigants. The Decision did not show any directive for the buyers to
vacate the property. Thereafter, the HLURB issued a Writ of Execution. It was at this point that
respondent Villarin entered his special appearance to represent Purence Realty. Specifically, he filed an
Omnibus Motion to set aside the Decision and to quash the Writ of Execution. This motion was not
acted upon by the HLURB.Villarin then sent demand letters to herein complainants. In all of these
letters, he demanded that they immediately vacate the property and surrender it to Purence Realty
within five days from receipt. Otherwise, he would file the necessary action against them. True enough,
Purence Realty, as represented by respondent, filed a Complaint for forcible entry before the Municipal
Trial Court (MTC) against Trinidad, Lander, Casubuan and Mendoza.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION:

Atty. Angelito Villarin is reprimanded with a warning that a repetition of the same or a similar act shall
be dealt with more severely.

DOCTRINE RELATED TO THE CANON:

Given that respondent knew that the aforementioned falsity totally disregarded the HLURB Decision, he
thus advances the interest of his client through means that are not in keeping with fairness and honesty.
What he does is clearly proscribed by Rule 19.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which
requires that a lawyer shall employ only fair and honest means to attain lawful objectives. Lawyers must
not present and offer in evidence any document that they know is false.

150. Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company vs. CA G.R. No. 86100-03 January 23, 1990

FACTS:

Metrobank was represented by Arturo Alafriz and Associates. Alafriz and associates filed charging lien,
pursuant to Section 37, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, equivalent to twenty-five percent (25%) of its
actual market value as professionals fee and despite due notice, Metrobank failed to oppose. On May
28,1984, private respondent filed a motion to fix its attorney's fees, based on quantum meruit which
then was granted by the court.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION:

The instant petition for review is hereby granted and the decision of respondent court of appeals of
February 11, 1988 affirming the order of the trial court is hereby reversed and set aside, without
prejudice to such appropriate proceedings as may be brought by private respondent to establish its right
to attorney's fees and the amount thereof.

DOCTRINE RELATED TO THE CANON:

A charging lien, to be enforceable as security for the payment of attorney’s fees, requires as a condition
sine qua non a judgment for money and execution in pursuance of such judgment secured in the main
action by the attorney in favor of his client. In the case at bar, the civil cases were dismissed upon the
initiative of the plaintiffs “in view of the full satisfaction of their claims.” This being so, private
respondent’s supposed charging lien is without any legal basis.

151: A.C. No. 528 – ANGEL ALBANO v. ATTY. PERPETUA COLOMA (Oct. 11, 1967)

FACTS:

Albano alleged that during the Japanese occupation, he and his mother retained the services of Atty.
Coloma as counsel in a civil case. Albano alleged that Atty. Coloma failed to expedite the hearing and
termination of the case, as a result of which they had themselves represented by another lawyer. Later,
they were surprised when Atty. Coloma collect her attorney’s fees by presenting a document, which
states an agreement that they will pay her. Albano claimed that said document was falsified and that
Atty. Coloma is a very influential woman in the Ilocos Norte as she was then a member of the provincial
Board. Respondent denies the petitioner’s allegation. She claimed that with the assistance of her sister
Atty. Olivia Coloma, they obtained a favorable judgment for the petitioner and his co-plaintiffs in the
civil case. She was dismissed as counsel by the petitioner in the civil case after she had won the case in
the Trial Court and Court of Appeals.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION:

WHEREFORE, the charge against respondent Perpetua Coloma, member of the Philippine Bar, is hereby
dismissed.

DOCTRINE:

Counsel, any counsel, who is worthy of his hire, is entitled to be fully recompensed for his services. With
his capital consisting solely of his brains and with his skill, acquired at tremendous cost not only in
money but in the expenditure of time and energy, he is entitled to the protection of any judicial tribunal
against any attempt of the part of a client to escape payment of his fees. It is indeed ironic if after
putting forth the best that is him to secure justice for the party he represents, he himself would not get
his due. Such an eventuality this Court is determined to avoid. It views with disapproval any and every
effort to those benefited by counsel’s services to deprive him of his hard-earned honorarium. Such an
attitude deserves condemnation.

152: GR No. L-40424 – R. MARINO CORPUS vs. COURT OF APPEALS & JUAN T. DAVID (June 30, 1980)

FACTS:

Corpus engaged the services of David. Corpus was dismissed from his office as director of Central Bank
Export Department and was reinstated and his backwages was also paid. David is now claiming for the
50% of the amount actually received by the Copus however he contends that David is not entitled to
attorney’s fees because there was no contract to that effect. On the other hand, David contends that the
absence of a formal contract for the payment of attorney’s fees will not negate the payment thereof
because the contract may be express or implied, and there was an implied understanding between them
that the Corpus will pay the latter attorney’s fees when a final decision shall have been rendered in his
favor.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION:

WHEREFORE, petitioner R. Marino Corpus is hereby directed to pay respondent Atty. Juan T. David the
sum of Php20,000.00 as attorney’s fees

DOCTRINE:

Contingent fees depend on an express contract. Thus, “an attorney is not entitled to a percentage of the
amount recovered by his client in the absence of an express contract to that effect” Moreover, the
payment of attorney’s fees to respondent David may also be justified by virtue of innominate contract
facio ut des (I do and you give) which is based on the principle that “no one shall unjustly enrich himself
at the expense of another”

153: GR No. 109219 – SUSANITA E. MENDOZA-PARKER vs. COURT OF APPEALS, RODOLFO TAN NG and
TERESITA RIOSA

FACTS:

Private respondents Rodolfo Tan Ng and Teresita Riosa has a pending case for collection of sum of
money with foreclosure of real estate mortgage against Demetrio Alcaras and Julieta Alcaras, which the
petitioner took over as counsel after the termination of the pre-trial. There was no full blown trial held
for the defendants in said civil case admitted their indebtedness. Petitioner filed a motion for summary
judgment which was granted in favor of the private respondents. Defendants in said case filed a petition
for relief from judgment and while the case was pending, petitioner withdraw her appearance with a
prayer for the payment of her attorney’s fees. Petitioner demands from the private respondent 15% of
the total monetary award granted by the trial court as her contingent fees. The petitioner’s motion was
approved by the trial court which was modified by the Court of Appeals and fixed petitioner’s attorney’s
fees in the amount of 30,000.00 in addition to the award of 10,000.00 in the summary judgment.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION

WHEREFORE, the petition is denied.

DOCTRINE

In the absence of an agreement as to the amount of the attorney’s fees, the courts are authorized to
determine the amount to be paid to an attorney as reasonable compensation for his professional
services. Even where the parties have agreed as to the amount of the attorney’s fees, the courts have
the power to disregard the contract if the amount fixed is unreasonable. A lawyer, being an officer of
the court, is placed under judicial control with regard to the reasonableness of the amount of the
attorney’s fees demanded by him from his client. The determination of the attorney’s fees depends on
various factors like: the amount and the character of the services rendered; the responsibility imposed;
the amount of money or the value of the property involved in the controversy; the skill and experience
called for the performance of the services; the professional standing of the attorney; the result secured;
and whether or not the payment of the fees is contingents or absolute.