Complainant vs. vs. Respondent: en Banc
Complainant vs. vs. Respondent: en Banc
RESOLUTION
CARANDANG , J : p
Rule 18.04 of the CPR states that "[a] lawyer shall keep the client informed of the
status of his case and shall respond within a reasonable time to the client's request for
information."
A lawyer's duty to keep his client constantly updated on the developments of his
case is crucial in maintaining the client's con dence. The lawyer needs to inform his
client, timely and adequately, important updates and status affecting the client's case.
He should not leave his client in the dark as how to he is defending the client's interest.
34
In this case, Atty. Narido, Jr. claims that he has constantly updated complainant
through his representative Almonia. However, Atty. Narido, Jr. did not present any
document establishing such fact. It is logical that Atty. Narido, Jr. should have at least a
document formally informing the complainant of the status of the case. He stated that
he knew that the complainant was hardly in the Philippines, then it would have been
more prudent, in keeping with his duty to inform his client of the status of the case, to
formally inform the complainant in writing and not merely verbally through Almonia,
which Atty. Narido, Jr. has not proven.
As held in the case of Mendoza vda. de Robosa v. Atty. Juan B. Mendoza, 3 5
Canon 18 of the CPR mandates that a lawyer shall serve his client with
competence and diligence. Rule 18.03 further provides that a lawyer shall not
neglect a legal matter entrusted to him and his negligence in connection
therewith shall render him liable.
Thus:
Once he agrees to take up the cause of a client, a lawyer owes delity to
such cause and must always be mindful of the trust and con dence reposed in
him. He must serve the client with competence and diligence and champion the
latter's cause with wholehearted delity, care and devotion. Elsewise stated, he
owes entire devotion to the interest of the client, warm zeal in the maintenance
and defense of his client's rights, and the exertion of his utmost learning and
ability to the end that nothing be taken or withheld from his client, save by the
rules of law, legally applied. This simply means that his client is entitled to the
bene t of any and every remedy and defense that is authorized by the law of
the land and he may expect his lawyer to assert every such remedy or defense.
If much is demanded from an attorney, it is because the entrusted privilege to
practice law carries with it the correlative duties not only to the client but also to
the court, to the bar and to the public. A lawyer who performs his duty with
diligence and candor not only protects the interest of his client; he also serves
the ends of justice, does honor to the bar and helps maintain the respect of the
community to the legal profession. TEHIaD
A contingency fee agreement has been generally rendered as valid and binding in
this jurisdiction. It is a contract in writing in which the fee, generally a xed percentage
of what may be recovered in an action, is made to depend upon the success of the
c as e . 3 8 The terms of the contingency fee contract largely depends upon the
reasonableness of the amount xed as contingent fee under the circumstances of the
case. 3 9 Canon 13 of the Canons of Professional Ethics states that a contract for a
contingent fee, when sanctioned by law, should be reasonable under all the
circumstances of the case including the risk and uncertainty of the compensation, but
should always be subject to the supervision of the court as to its reasonableness. 4 0
In this case, Atty. Narido, Jr. claims that the contingency fee agreement between
him and the complainant is only limited at the MCTC level and a separate contingency
fee is required in the appeal before the RTC and another separate contingency fee is
required in the appeal before the CA. Be it noted that the amount of contingency fee in
the instant case is 35% of the property or its value. A separate contingency fee for the
appeal before the RTC and another separate contingency fee for the appeal before the
CA is clearly unreasonable, unjusti ed and unconscionable. It should be stated that this
is a mere ejectment case and requiring a 35% contingency fee of the property or its
value and limiting the same only in the MCTC case is clearly violative of Section 24, Rule
138 of the Rules of Court, which explicitly provides:
Sec. 24. Compensation of attorneys; agreement as to fees. — An
attorney shall be entitled to have and recover from his client no more than a
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
reasonable compensation for his services, with a view to the importance of the
subject matter of the controversy, the extent of the services rendered, and the
professional standing of the attorney. No court shall be bound by the opinion of
attorneys as expert witnesses as to the proper compensation, but may disregard
such testimony and base its conclusion on its own professional knowledge. A
written contract for services shall control the amount to be paid therefor unless
found by the court to be unconscionable or unreasonable.
The practice of law is not a business. Public service, not pro t, should be the
primary consideration. Lawyering is not primarily meant to be a money-making venture,
and law advocacy is not a capital that necessarily yields pro ts. To serve and
administer Justice must be the primary purpose of lawyers and their personal interest
should be subordinate. 4 1
Atty. Narido, Jr. makes it appear that complainant owes him for representing the
latter in the appeal before the RTC and the CA, despite the absence of a separate
retainer agreement from complainant. Atty. Narido, Jr. should be reminded that this is
exactly his duty to his client and not a circumstance that would be interpreted as a
noble act or that would mitigate his unethical conduct. Once he accepted or agreed to
take up the cause of the complainant, Atty. Narido, Jr. owes delity to such case. It is a
fundamental rule in ethics that an attorney who undertakes an action impliedly
stipulates to carry it to its termination, that is, until the case becomes nal and
executory. He cannot simply abandon his client and withdraw his service without
reasonable cause and only upon proper notice with the court. 4 2 DETACa
However, Atty. Narido, Jr. cannot be faulted from demanding P10,000.00 for his
buried materials, which the complainant unceremoniously scattered over the leased
premises and were buried by the dump trucks of Guani. TaDCEc
SO ORDERED.
Bersamin, C.J., Carpio, Peralta, Perlas-Bernabe, Leonen, Jardeleza, Caguioa, A.B.
Reyes, Jr., Gesmundo, J.C. Reyes, Jr., Hernando, Lazaro-Javier, Inting and Zalameda, JJ.,
concur.
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 2-8.
2. Rule 1.01 — A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
3. Rule 18.04 — A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his case and shall
respond within a reasonable time to the client's request for information.
4. Rule 20.04 — A lawyer shall avoid controversies with clients concerning his compensation
and shall resort to judicial action only to prevent imposition, injustice or fraud.
5. Rollo, p. 2.
6. Id. at 10-11.
7. Id. at 12.
8. Id. at 3.
9. Id.
34. Mendoza vda. de Robosa v. Atty. Mendoza, 769 Phil. 359, 377 (2015).
35. Id.
36. Id.
37. 508 Phil. 113 (2005).
38. Sps. Jacinto v. Atty. Bangot Jr., 706 Phil. 302, 315 (2016).
42. De Juan v. Atty Baria III, 473 Phil. 161, 167 (2004).
43. Macarilay v. Seriño, 497 Phil. 349, 356 (2005).
44. CIVIL CODE, Art. 1646. The persons disqualified to buy referred to in Articles 1490 and 1491,
are also disqualified to become lessees of the things mentioned therein.
45. CIVIL CODE, Art. 1491. The following persons cannot acquire by purchase, even at a public
or judicial auction, either in person or through the mediation of another:
(1) The guardian, the property of the person or persons who may be under his
guardianship;
(2) Agents, the property whose administration or sale may have been entrusted to them,
unless the consent of the principal has been given;
(3) Executors and administrators, the property of the estate under administration;
(4) Public officers and employees, the property of the State or of any subdivision
thereof, or of any government-owned or controlled corporation, or institution, the
administration of which has been intrusted to them; this provision shall apply to judges
and government experts who, in any manner whatsoever, take part in the sale;
49. Id.
50. Rollo, pp. 52-53.
53. A.C. No. 11494, July 24, 2017, supra note 48.