Republic of the
Supreme Court
|
VALENTIN C. MIRANDA, Complainant, - versus- ATTY. MACARIO D. CARPIO, Respondent. |
A. C. No. 6281
Present: PERALTA, J., Acting Chairperson, ABAD, PEREZ,* MENDOZA, and PERLAS-BERNABE, JJ.
Promulgated: September
26, 2011 |
x---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
PERALTA, J.:
This
is a disbarment case against Atty. Macario D. Carpio filed by Valentin C.
Miranda.[1]
The facts,
as culled from the records, are as follows:
Complainant Valentin C. Miranda
is one of the owners of a parcel of land consisting of 1,890 square meters
located at Barangay Lupang Uno, Las Pias, Metro Manila. In 1994, complainant initiated Land
Registration Commission (LRC) Case No. M-226 for the registration of the
aforesaid property. The case was filed
before the
In complainant's
Affidavit,[2]
complainant and respondent agreed that complainant was to pay respondent Twenty
Thousand Pesos (PhP20,000.00) as acceptance fee and Two Thousand Pesos
(PhP2,000.00) as appearance fee. Complainant paid respondent the amounts due
him, as evidenced by receipts duly signed by the latter. During the last hearing of the case,
respondent demanded the additional amount of Ten Thousand Pesos (PhP10,000.00)
for the preparation of a memorandum, which he said would further strengthen
complainant's position in the case, plus twenty percent (20%) of the total area
of the subject property as additional fees for his services.
Complainant
did not accede to respondent's demand for it was contrary to their agreement.
Moreover, complainant co-owned the subject property with his siblings, and he
could not have agreed to the amount being demanded by respondent without the
knowledge and approval of his co-heirs. As
a result of complainant's refusal to satisfy respondent's demands, the latter
became furious and their relationship became sore.
On
On
In a letter[3]
dated
On
In seeking
the disbarment or the imposition of the appropriate penalty upon respondent,
complainant invokes the following provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility:
Canon 20. A lawyer shall
charge only fair and reasonable fees.
Canon 16. A lawyer shall hold
in trust all moneys and properties of his
client that may come into his possession.
Canon 16.03. A lawyer shall
deliver the funds and properties of his client
when due or upon demand. x x x
In defense
of his actions, respondent relied on his alleged retaining lien over the
owner's duplicate of OCT No. 0-94. Respondent admitted that he did not turn over
to complainant the owner's duplicate of OCT No. 0-94 because of complainant's
refusal, notwithstanding repeated demands, to complete payment of his agreed
professional fee consisting of 20% of the total area of the property covered by
the title, i.e., 378 square meters out of 1,890 square meters, or its
equivalent market value at the rate of PhP7,000.00 per square meter, thus,
yielding a sum of PhP2,646,000.00 for the entire 378-square-meter portion and
that he was ready and willing to turn over the owner's duplicate of OCT No. 0-94,
should complainant pay him completely the aforesaid professional fee.
Respondent
admitted the receipt of the amount of PhP32,000.00, however, he alleged that
the amount earlier paid to him will be deducted from the 20% of the current
value of the subject lot. He alleged
that the agreement was not reduced into writing, because the parties believed
each other based on their mutual trust. He denied that he demanded the payment of
PhP10,000.00 for the preparation of a memorandum, since he considered the same
unnecessary.
In addition
to the alleged agreement between him and complainant for the payment of the 20%
professional fees, respondent invoked the principle of quantum meruit
to justify the amount being demanded by him.
In its Report and Recommendation[4]
dated June 9, 2005, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines-Commission on Bar
Discipline (IBP-CBD) recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice
of law for a period of six (6) months for unjustly withholding from complainant
the owner's duplicate of OCT No. 0-94 in the exercise of his so-called
attorney's lien. In Resolution No.
XVII-2005-173,[5]
dated
Respondent filed a motion for
reconsideration of the resolution of the IBP Board of Governors adopting the
report and recommendation of the IBP-CBD. Pending the resolution of his motion
for reconsideration, respondent filed a petition for review[6]
with this Court. The Court, in a Resolution[7]
dated
In Notice of Resolution No. XVIII-2008-672, dated
The Court sustains the resolution of the IBP Board of
Governors, which affirmed with modification the findings and recommendations of
the IBP-CBD. Respondent's claim for his unpaid professional fees that would
legally give him the right to retain the property of his client until he
receives what is allegedly due him has been paid has no basis and, thus, is
invalid.
Section 37,
Rule 138 of the Rules of Court specifically provides:
Section
37. Attorneys liens. An attorney shall have a lien upon the funds,
documents and papers of his client, which have lawfully come into his
possession and may retain the same until his lawful fees and disbursements have
been paid, and may apply such funds to the satisfaction thereof. He shall also
have a lien to the same extent upon all judgments for the payment of money, and
executions issued in pursuance of such judgments, which he has secured in a
litigation of his client, from and after the time when he shall have caused a
statement of his claim of such lien to be entered upon the records of the court
rendering such judgment, or issuing such execution, and shall have caused
written notice thereof to be delivered to his client and to the adverse party;
and he shall have the same right and power over such judgments and executions
as his client would have to enforce his lien and secure the payment of his just
fees and disbursements.
An attorney's retaining lien is fully recognized if the
presence of the following elements concur: (1) lawyer-client relationship; (2)
lawful possession of the client's funds, documents and papers; and (3) unsatisfied
claim for attorney's fees.[9] Further, the
attorney's retaining lien is a general lien for the balance of the account
between the attorney and his client, and applies to the documents and funds of
the client which may come into the attorney's possession in the course of his
employment.[10]
In the present case, complainant
claims that there is no such agreement for the payment of professional
fee consisting of 20% of the total area of the subject property and submits
that their agreement was only for the payment of the acceptance fee and the appearance
fees.
As correctly found by the IBP-CBD,
there was no proof of any agreement between the complainant and the respondent
that the latter is entitled to an additional professional fee consisting
of 20% of the total area covered by OCT
No. 0-94. The agreement between
the parties only shows that respondent will be paid the acceptance fee and the appearance
fees, which the respondent has duly received.
Clearly, there is no unsatisfied claim for attorney's fees that
would entitle respondent to retain his client's property. Hence, respondent could not validly withhold the title of his client absence a clear and
justifiable claim.
Respondent's
unjustified act of holding on to complainant's title with the obvious aim of
forcing complainant to agree to the amount of attorney's fees sought is an
alarming abuse by respondent of the exercise of an attorney's retaining
lien, which by no means is an absolute right, and cannot at
all justify inordinate delay in the delivery of money and property
to his client when due or upon demand.[11]
Atty. Carpio failed to live up to his duties as a lawyer by
unlawfully withholding and failing to deliver the title of the complainant,
despite repeated demands, in the guise of an alleged entitlement to additional
professional fees. He has breached Rule
1.01 of Canon 1 and Rule 16.03 of Canon 16 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, which read:
CANON 1 - A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE
CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW AND LEGAL
PROCESS.
Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in
unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
CANON 16 - A LAWYER SHALL HOLD IN TRUST
ALL MONEYS AND PROPERTIES OF HIS CLIENT THAT MAY COME INTO HIS POSSESSION.
Rule 16.03 - A lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of his client when
due or upon demand. However, he shall have a lien over the funds and may apply
so much thereof as may be necessary to satisfy his lawful fees and
disbursements, giving notice promptly thereafter to his client. He shall also
have a lien to the same extent on all judgments and executions he has secured
for his client as provided for in the Rules of Court.
Further,
in collecting from complainant exorbitant fees, respondent violated Canon 20 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility, which mandates that a lawyer shall charge only fair and
reasonable fees. It is highly improper
for a lawyer to impose additional professional fees upon his client which were
never mentioned nor agreed upon at the time of the engagement of his services. At the outset, respondent should have
informed the complainant of all the fees or possible fees that he would charge
before handling the case and not towards the near conclusion of the case. This is essential in order for the
complainant to determine if he has the financial capacity to pay respondent
before engaging his services.
Respondent's further submission that he is entitled to the
payment of additional professional fees on the basis of the principle of quantum
meruit has no merit. "Quantum
meruit, meaning `as much as he deserved' is used as a basis for determining the
lawyer's professional fees in the absence of a contract but recoverable by him
from his client."[12] The principle of quantum meruit
applies if a lawyer is employed without a price agreed upon for his services. In such a case, he would be entitled to
receive what he merits for his services, as much as he has earned.[13] In the present case, the parties had already
entered into an agreement as to the attorney's fees of the respondent, and
thus, the principle of quantum meruit does not fully find application
because the respondent is already compensated by such agreement.
The
Court notes that respondent did not inform complainant that he will be the one
to secure the owner's duplicate of the OCT from the RD and failed to
immediately inform complainant that the title was already in his possession. Complainant, on April 3, 2000, went to the RD
of Las Pias City to get the owner's duplicate of OCT No. 0-94, only to be
surprised that the said title had already been claimed by, and released to,
respondent on March 29, 2000. A lawyer
must conduct himself, especially in his dealings with
his clients, with integrity in a manner that is beyond reproach. His
relationship with his clients should be characterized by the highest degree of
good faith and fairness.[14] By keeping secret with the client his
acquisition of the title, respondent was not fair in his dealing with his
client. Respondent could have easily
informed the complainant immediately of his receipt of the owner's duplicate of
the OCT on March 29, 2000, in order to save his client the time and effort in
going to the RD to get the title.
Respondent's inexcusable act of withholding the property
belonging to his client and imposing unwarranted fees in exchange for the
release of said title deserve the imposition of disciplinary sanction. Hence, the
ruling of the IBP Board of Governors, adopting and approving with modification
the report and recommendation of the IBP-CBD that respondent be suspended from
the practice of law for a period of six (6) months and that respondent be
ordered to return the complainant's owner's duplicate of OCT No. 0-94 is hereby
affirmed. However, the fifteen-day
period from notice given to respondent
within which to return the title should be modified and, instead, respondent
should return the same immediately upon receipt of the Court's decision.
WHEREFORE, Atty. Macario D. Carpio is SUSPENDED
from the practice of law for a
period of six (6) months, effective upon receipt of this Decision. He is
ordered to RETURN to the complainant the owner's duplicate of OCT No.
0-94 immediately upon receipt of this decision.
He is WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar act shall be
dealt with more severely.
Let a copy of this Decision be
furnished to the Office of the Bar Confidant, to be appended to the personal
record of Atty. Macario D. Carpio as a member of the Bar; the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines; and the Office of the Court Administrator for circulation to
all courts in the country for their information and guidance.
SO ORDERED.
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
ROBERTO A. ABAD
Associate Justice
JOSE PORTUGAL
PEREZ JOSE CATRAL
MENDOZA
Associate Justice Associate Justice
ESTELA M. PERLAS-BERNABE
Associate Justice
* Designated additional member in lieu of Associate Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., per Special Order No. 1102 dated September 21, 2011.
[1] The case was initially referred by this Court to the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines for investigation, report and recommendation
and docketed as ADM. Case No. 6281; rollo,
p. 36.
[2] Rollo, pp. 7-10.
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8] A.C. No. 7055, July 31, 2006, 497 SCRA 130, 137-138. In that case, the Court held that:
In concurrence with the above, now, therefore, BE IT RESOLVED, as it is hereby resolved, that in accordance with our ruling in Halimao v. Villanueva, pertinent provisions of Rule III of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission on Bar Discipline, as contained in the By-Laws of the IBP, particularly 1 and 2, are hereby deemed amended. Accordingly, 1 of said rules now reads as follows:
SECTION.
1. Pleadings. - The only pleadings
allowed are verified complaint, verified answer, verified position papers and motion for reconsideration of a
resolution. (Emphasis supplied.)
And
in 2, a motion for reconsideration is, thus, removed from the purview of the
class of prohibited pleadings.
Further, the following guidelines shall be observed by the IBP in respect of
disciplinary cases against lawyers:
1.
The IBP must first afford a chance to either party to file a motion for reconsideration
of the IBP resolution containing its findings and recommendations within
fifteen (15) days from notice of receipt by the parties thereon;
2.
If a motion for reconsideration has been timely filed by an aggrieved party,
the IBP must first resolve the same prior to elevating to this Court the
subject resolution together with the whole record of the case;
x
x x x
5.
For records of cases already transmitted to this Court where there exist
pending motions for reconsideration filed in due time before the IBP, the
latter is directed to withdraw from this Court the subject resolutions,
together with the whole records of the cases, within 30 days from notice, and,
thereafter, to act on said motions with reasonable dispatch.
[9] Ampil v. Hon. Agrava, 145 Phil. 297, 303 (1970). (Emphasis supplied)
[10]
[11] Lemoine v. Atty. Balon, Jr., 460 Phil. 702, 714 (2003).
[12] Rilloroza v. Eastern Telecommunications Phils., Inc., 369 Phil. 1, 11 (1999).
[13] Lorenzo v. Court of Appeals,
G.R. No. 85383,
[14] Schulz v. Atty. Flores, 462 Phil. 601, 613 (2003).