|
SYNOPSIS In Civil Case 17215, where R. Mercado was represented by Atty. De Vera, Judge Bandalan awarded the former the sum of a little over P9 million. A total amount of P1,270,734.56 was later garnished and Mrs. Mercado, assisted by De Vera, withdrew the same. De Vera convinced Mrs. Mercado to give him the money for safekeeping but later, De Vera refused to turn over the money alleging that he is entitled to an estimated 2.250 million attorney’s fees. In the disbarment proceedings filed against De Vera and Judge Bandalan, the IBP Board of Governors adopted Resolution No. X-93-41 recommending the suspension of De Vera from the practice of law for one year, and dismissing the case against Judge Bandalan for lack of jurisdiction. De Vera questioned the validity of said resolution. In case of a disagreement with the client, the proper remedy of the lawyer is to file the necessary action. And on the alleged irregularity in the adoption of Resolution No. X-93-41, respondents were able to adequately show why the assailed resolution of the Board of Governors’ recommendation could not have been accomplished on the same day of the meeting. Evidently, it was not an uncommon practice for board resolutions to be signed on different days by the members of the Board of Governors. SYLLABUS LEGAL ETHICS; PRACTICE OF LAW; COMPENSATION FOR SERVICES RENDERED WHERE THERE IS DISAGREEMENT BETWEEN THE LAWYER AND CLIENT; PROPER REMEDY. - While, indeed, the practice of law is not a business venture, a lawyer, nevertheless, is entitled to be duly compensated for professional services rendered. So, also, he must be protected against clients who wrongly refuse to give him his just due. Correlatively, a lawyer is entitled to a “lien over funds, documents and papers of his client which have lawfully come into his possession.” Under Canon 16, Rule 16.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility he may “apply so much thereof as may be necessary to satisfy his lawful fees and disbursements, giving notice promptly thereafter to his client.” In both cases, however, it is to be assumed that the client agrees with the lawyer in the amount of attorney’s fees. In case of a disagreement, or when the client disputes the amount claimed by the lawyer for being unconscionable, the lawyer should not arbitrarily apply the funds in his possession to the payment of his fees; instead, it should behoove the lawyer to file, if he still deems it desirable, the necessary action or the proper motion with the proper court to fix the amount of his attorney’s fees. APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL Alcantara & Alcantara Law Office for complainants in AC No. 3066. Arthur D. Lim and Jose Amor M. Amorado for respondents IBP Officials. |
