FELICISIMO M. MONTANO, complainant, vs. INTEGRATED BAR of the PHILIPPINES AND Atty. JUAN S. DEALCA, respondents.
R E S O L U T I O N
KAPUNAN, J.:
FACTS:
Felicisimo M. Montano charged Atty. Juan Dealca with misconduct.
As per the Montano, he hired the services of Atty. Juan S. Dealca as his counsel in collaboration with Atty. Ronando L. Gerona in a case pending before the Court of Appeals.
The parties agreed upon attorneys fees in the amount of P15,000.00, fifty percent (50%) of which was payable upon acceptance of the case and the remaining balance upon the termination of the case.
Thereafter, even before the respondent counsel had prepared the appellants brief and contrary to their agreement that the remaining balance be payable after the termination of the case, Atty. Dealca demanded an additional payment from complainant. Complainant obliged by paying the amount of P4,000.00.
Prior to the filing of the appellants brief, respondent counsel again demand payment of the remaining balance of 3,500.00. When complainant was unable to do so, respondent lawyer withdrew his appearance as complainants counsel without his prior knowledge and/or conformity.
Returning the case folder to the complainant, respondent counsel attached a Note dated February 28, 1993,[2]stating:
28 February 1994
Pepe and Del Montano,
For breaking your promise, since you do not want to fulfill your end of the bargain, heres your reward:
Henceforth, you lawyer for yourselves.Here are your papers.
Complainant claimed that such conduct by respondent counsel exceeded the ethical standards of the law profession and prays that the latter be sternly dealt with administratively.
The Investigating Commissioner found respondent counsel guilty of unprofessional conduct and recommended that he be severely reprimanded. However, in a Resolution[3] by the IBP Board of Governors on July 26, 1997, it was resolved that the penalty recommended by the Investigating Commissioner meted to respondent by amended to three (3) months suspension from the practice of law for having been found guilty of misconduct, which eroded the public confidence regarding his duty as a lawyer.
Respondent counsel sought reconsideration of the aforementioned resolution of the IBP, alleging that the latter misapprehended the facts and that, in any case, he did not deserve the penalty imposed.
The true facts, according to him, are the following:
1. Complainant is being represented by Atty. Ronando L. Gerona in his case on appeal;
2. Due to the ailment of Atty. Geronas daughter, he could not prepare and submit complainants appellants brief on time;
3. Complainant went to the respondent to do just that, i.e., prepare and submit his appellants brief on time at the agreed fee of P15,000.00, 50% down and 50% upon its completion;
4. Working overtime, respondent was able to finish the appellants brief ahead of its deadline, so he advised the complainant about its completion with the request that the remaining balance of P7,500.00 be paid.Complainant paid P4,000.00 only, promising to pay the P3,500.00 tomorrow or on later particular date.
This promise-non-payment cycle went on repeatedly until the last day of the filing of the brief.
Respondent counsel further averred that complainants refusal to pay the agreed lawyers fees, measly as it was, was deliberate and in bad faith; hence, his withdrawal as counsel was just, ethical and proper.
ISSUE:
Whether Atty. Dealca violated Canon 22 of Code of Professional Responsibilities.
RULING:
Going into the merits, we affirm the findings made by the IBP that complainant engaged the services of respondent lawyer only for the preparation and submission of the appellants brief and the attorneys fees was payable upon the completion and submission of the appellants brief and not upon the termination of the case.
However, there is sufficient evidence which indicates complainants willingness to pay the attorneys fees. As agreed upon, complainant paid half of the fees in the amount of P7,500.00 upon acceptance of the case. And while the remaining balance was not yet due as it was agreed to be paid only upon the completion and submission of the brief, complainant nonetheless delivered to respondent lawyer P4,000.00 as the latter demanded. This, notwithstanding, Atty. Dealca withdrew his appearance simply because of complainants failure to pay the remaining balance of P3,500.00, which does not appear to be deliberate. The situation was aggravated by respondent counsels note to complainant withdrawing as counsel which was couched in impolite and insulting language.[10]
We find Atty. Dealcas conduct unbecoming of a member of the legal profession. Under Canon 22 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, lawyer shall withdraw his services only for good cause and upon notice appropriate in the circumstances. Although he may withdraw his services when the client deliberately fails to pay the fees for the services,[11]under the circumstances of the present case, Atty. Dealcas withdrawal was unjustified as complainant did not deliberately fail to pay him the attorneys fees. In fact, complainant exerted honest efforts to fulfill his obligation. Respondents contemptuous conduct does not speak well of a member of the bar considering that the amount owing to him was only P3,500.00.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, respondent Atty. Juan S. Dealca is REPRIMANDED with a warning that repetition of the same act will be dealt with more severely.
No comments:
Post a Comment