[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
609 views1 page

Lawyer Reprimanded for Unjust Withdrawal

Atty. Dealca withdrew as counsel for a client because the client failed to pay the remaining balance of P3,500 in legal fees, despite the client exerting honest efforts to pay and already paying P4,000 of the P7,500 agreed upon fees. The Supreme Court ruled that Atty. Dealca's withdrawal was unjustified under the circumstances and was unbecoming of a lawyer. While disbarment was requested, the Court determined reprimand was sufficient given the circumstances. Atty. Dealca was reprimanded and warned that repetition of the same act would be dealt with more severely.

Uploaded by

Ridzanna Abdulgafur
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
609 views1 page

Lawyer Reprimanded for Unjust Withdrawal

Atty. Dealca withdrew as counsel for a client because the client failed to pay the remaining balance of P3,500 in legal fees, despite the client exerting honest efforts to pay and already paying P4,000 of the P7,500 agreed upon fees. The Supreme Court ruled that Atty. Dealca's withdrawal was unjustified under the circumstances and was unbecoming of a lawyer. While disbarment was requested, the Court determined reprimand was sufficient given the circumstances. Atty. Dealca was reprimanded and warned that repetition of the same act would be dealt with more severely.

Uploaded by

Ridzanna Abdulgafur
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

109. Montano vs.

IBP, 358 SCRA 1 (2001)

Facts:

On November 14, 1992, the complainant 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 docketed as
CA-G.R. CV No. 3767 wherein the complainant was the plaintiff-appellant. 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 complainant's failure to pay
the remaining balance of P3,500.00.

A disbarment case was filed against respondent. Respondent counsel further averred that complainant's
refusal to pay the agreed lawyer's fees, measly as it was, was deliberate and in bad faith; hence, his
withdrawal as counsel was "just, ethical and proper." Respondent counsel concluded that not only was
the penalty of suspension harsh for his act of merely trying to collect payment for his services rendered,
but it indirectly would punish his family since he was the sole breadwinner with children in school and
his wife terminally ill with cancer.

Issue:

WON the withdrawal of services of Atty. Dealca was just and proper.

Ruling:

No. We find Atty. Dealca's conduct unbecoming of a member of the legal profession. Under Canon 22 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility, a 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.
Dealca's withdrawal was unjustified as complainant did not deliberately fail to pay him the attorney's
fees. In fact, complainant exerted honest efforts to fulfill his obligation. Respondent's contemptuous
conduct does not speak well of a member of the bar considering that the amount owing to him was only
P3,500.00. rule 20.4 of Canon 20, mandates that a lawyer shall avoid controversies with clients
concerning his compensation and shall resort to judicial action only to prevent imposition, injustice or
fraud. Sadly, for not so large a sum owed to him by complainant, respondent lawyer failed to act in
accordance with the demands of the Code.

The Court, however, does not agree with complainant's contention that the maximum penalty of
disbarment should be imposed on respondent lawyer. The power to disbar must be exercised with great
caution. Only in a clear case of misconduct that seriously affects the standing and character of the
lawyer as an officer of the Court and member of the bar will disbarment be imposed as a penalty. It
should never be decreed where a lesser penalty, such as temporary suspension, would accomplish the
end desired.12 In the present case, reprimand is deemed sufficient.of compound interest on the sum
due respondent are deplorable.

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.

You might also like