DISPOSICIONES GENERALES

JUDICIAL NOTICE SENT TO THE COUNSEL OF RECORD BINDING UPON THE CLIENT

RATIO

Records show that ATTY UNSON was the counsel of record of the ESTATE OF DOMINGO in the appellate court and never filed any withdrawal as such counsel. Even after the removal of ATTY DOMINGO as administrator of the estate, ATTY UNSON filed in the appellate court his memorandum for the estate.

Moreover, while it may be true that ATTY UNSON ceased as counsel for the estate and for the former administrator when the intestate court granted his motion to withdraw as counsel by virtue of his appointment to and assumption of public office of Assistant Administrator of the Sugar Quota Administration, this was true only as far as the intestate court was concerned. He continued on record in the appellate court and did not file any withdrawal as counsel. In addition to that, no

appearance of new counsel for the estate was ever filed.

It follows that since notice and copy of the appellate court‘s decision were served by registered mail on the estate‘s counsel of record ATTY UNSON and the latter failed to claim his mail on the 5th _{day after the first}

notice of the postmaster, such service was deemed completed and effected and binding upon the client, in this case the Estate of Domingo. As to the contention that removal of ATTY DOMINGO as administratrix means removal of ATTY UNSON as the estate‘s counsel because ATTY DOMINGO was the one who engaged the services of ATTY UNSON, the fact that ATTY UNSON‘S services were engaged by ATTY DOMINGO in his official capacity as administrator, did not make ATTY UNSON his personal counsel. ATTY UNSON continued to be authorized to represent the estate as its counsel until the new administrator DOMINGO DE LOPEZ should terminate his services which she never did.

JUDGMENT

SC: ATTY REGINO (petitioner‘s counsel in this case) is reminded that cooperation of litigants and their attorneys is needed so that needless clogging of the court dockets with unmeritorious cases may be avoided. Hence, petition is dismissed and ATTY REGINO is ordered to pay treble costs.

146 AQUINO v BLANCO

Facts:

- Petitioners Santiago Aquiño and Dionisia Aguirre filed a complaint against Dominga Salveron in the CFI, which the petitioners won.

- Salveron was represented in that case by Atty. Basilio Sorioso. Atty. Sorioso was appointed as Assistant Provincial Fiscal of Iloilo on Feb. 11, 1947.

- Despite the appointment, the judgment in the earlier mentioned case was served on Atty. Sorioso.

- Salveron was only informed of the judgment on Mar. 26, 1947 when a writ of execution was served on him.

- Salveron then filed a petition to vacate said writ of execution. This was granted by Judge Blanco.

Issue:

- W/n the service of judgment made on Atty. Sorioso constitutes service upon his client, Salveron.

Held:

- SC says NO.

- When Attorney Sorioso was appointed to the position of assistant provincial fiscal and therein qualified, by operation of law he ceased to engage in private law practice, and as a consequence he became simultaneously disqualified to continue representing his former client, the herein respondent Dominga Salveron, in the above-mentioned case. So that in contemplation of law the notice of the decision upon him on February 11, 1947, was not a notice upon said respondent, and the period for perfecting an appeal on the part of the latter in reality did not then commence to run but only, if at all, when she acquired knowledge of said decision upon the service on her of the writ of execution on March 26, 1947.

147 WACKWACK GOLF v CA

Facts: Arcangel, a former employee of Wack Wack (WW), filed with the CFI a money claim case for overtime services rendered to WW, for unenjoyed vacation, moral damages, and atty.‘s fees. At the hearing of the case, neither WW nor its counsel, Balcoff et. al., appeared, despite notification. As a result, the lower court rendered judgment in favor of Arcangel.

The firm of Chuidian, on behalf of WW, filed a petition to set aside the judgment on the ground of mistake, misunderstanding, and excusable neglect. According to the firm of Chuidian, WW was first represented by Balcoff et. al. Thereafter, WW decided to replace Balcoff et. al. with the Chuidian Law Office. When the representative of Chuidian went to the firm of Balcoff to inform the latter of the replacement, Mr. Balcoff was not in the office. Atty. Cruz of Balcoff et. al. declared that he had no authority to turn over the records of the case to Chuidian Law Office. As a result, Atty. Chuidian called Atty. Balcoff. Atty. Chuidian said that, inasmuch as Balcoff et. al. was still representing the WW, the Chuidian Law Office will send a representative on the hearing day. However, no representative from the Chuidian Law Office came. (This is the misunderstanding that was mentioned above. Balcoff thought that Chuidian will be the one to appear instead of him.

Issue: W/N the judgment in favor of Arcangel should be set aside based on misunderstanding.

Page 172 of 203

Held: The judgment should not be set aside. Misunderstanding alibi

not accepted.

The law firm of Balcoff and Cruz was still WW‘s counsel of record, because the firm of Chuidian only entered appearance after the date of the hearing mentioned above. As such counsel of record, Balcoff et. al. must have known that it is under obligation to protect WW‘s interest until its final release from the professional relationship.

The lack of coordination and understanding between the two law firms cannot be considered a legal excuse within the ambit of excusable negligence.

148 AMPIL v AGRAVA

Facts:

-Ampil was the counsel for Angela Perez in several cases. The principal cases handled by Ampil were filed in the CFI by Angela‘s husband and son, Antonio and Benigno Perez, asking that Angela be placed under guardianship and that a suitable person be appointed to administer her properties. Later on, the parties submitted to court, which dismissed the action for lack of jurisdiction. This dismissal was affirmed by SC. -A case was later filed by Antonio and Benigno with the domestic court of Manila, seeking the court‘s approval of the compromise agreement. The domestic court dismissed the proceeding on the ground of lack of jurisdiction because the case which was to be settled amicably by the compromise agreement had already been dismissed by CFI as affirmed by SC.

-Ampil asserts that Angela terminated his services as counsel without just cause and without paying him for his profiessional services, for which he presented his bill and asserted his retaining lien over the three titles entrusted to him by Angela in the course of his professional employment.

-Eventually, the compromise agreement mentioned above was

approved by the Supreme Court. Benigno and Antonio thus filed a case to obtain the titles held by Ampil. They claimed that the attorney‘s lien must be exercised over the properties belonging to Angela, not over the properties belonging to them in the compromise agreement. They also argued that the compromise agreement was entered into 8 years before Ampil was discharged as Angela‘s counsel, besides, Ampil took a position adverse to them by seeking to have the compromise agreement annulled. They concluded that Ampil was therefore bound by the compromise agreement.

Issue:

W/N whether Ampil has a right to keep his retaining lien over the said titles until his services are paid for.

Held: YES.

-Three elements of attorney‘s retaining lien were met: 1) lawyer-client relationship; 2) lawful possession of the client‘s funds, documents, and papers; and 3) unsatisfied claim for attorney‘s fees.

-Ampil obtained possession of the titles when they still belonged to his client Angela. It was only when Angela later on confirmed the compromise agreement that it became valid. The transfer of the properties to Antonio and Benigno could not retroact to the time the compromise was originally executed.

-The situation would be different where title to the property is the very subject in dispute in the case and the court adjudges the client‘s adversary to be rightfully entitled thereto. In such as case the titles to the property could not be said to be properties of the client. The attorney may enforce his lien only over the properties of his client and not against those of his client‘s adversary.

-Petitioner is in no way interfering with the taking possession of the properties and enjoyment of the fruits thereof. All that petitioner asserts and exercises is his passive lien of retaining the muniments of title thereto. Such retention only impedes the corresponding registration and transfer of titles to respondents.

149 MATUTE v MATUTE

FACTS:

 Jose Matute filed an action against the administrator Matias Matute.

 Jose is asking Matias to surrender 17 titles to various properties of the estate

 Probate court granted the prayer of Jose and ordere3d the surrender of the titles

 Matias and his counsel Atty. Canlas appealed the decision ISSUE:

 W/N Atty. Canlas may be compelled to surrender the titles even though he was not yet paid his fees

HELD:

 NO!

 An attorney is entitled to retain documents in the case pending settlement of attorney‘s fees.

 Sec 37 of Rule 138 provides that attorneys cannot be compelled to surrender the documents in his possession without prior proof that his fees has been duly satisfied

 But the court may require the attorney to deliver the papers in his possession provided that the client files proper security for the attorney‘s compensation

150 RUSTIA v ABETO

FACTS:

 Atty. Rustia filed this case to annul orders of the CFI of Manila in the case of ―Intestate Estate of Antonio de la Riva‖.

 Atty. Rustia was the counsel of respondent, Milagros Schmid, the administrator of the intestate estate.

 When Rustia was relieved as attorney, he sent a bill for P32,330. He wanted to have a lien over all funds and documents that he is currently holding for the administrator.

 CFI of Manila ordered Atty. Rustia to hand over the certificate of a land. Atty. Rustia is objecting saying that he has a lien over the TCT for his professional fees.

 CFI nonetheless still went on with its previous order. Atty. Rustia obeyed the order. And then this case was filed. ISSUE:

 W/N Atty. Rustia has a valid lien over the documents in his possession

Page 173 of 203

HELD:

 YES. 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.

 The general or retaining lien of an attorney is dependent upon the possession and does not attach to anything not in the attorney‘s hands.

 The courts may require the attorney to deliver up the papers in his possession provided the client files proper security for the attorney‘s compensation.

151 METROPOLITAN BANK v CA

FACTS:

- ANTECEDAL FACTS (up to you guys kung gusto nyo basahin tong paragraph na toh... not pertinent to our lesson): Celedonio Javier bought 7 parcels of land owned by Eustaqio Alejandro. Javier mortgaged with Metrobank the lots to secure a loan of Bautista?Int'l

Hotel Corp. Metrobank foreclosed on the properties. Alejandro alleged fraud in the sale, and brought suits against Javier and Metrobank. During the pendency of these suits, Metrobank sold lots to Service Leasing, resold to Herby Commercial, which mortgaged the same to Banco de Oro.

- Arturo Alfariz and Associates handled the civil cases of Metrobank. All the civil cases were for the declaration of nullity of certain deeds of sale, with damages. The lawyers did not have any knowledge of any of the transfers made by Metrobank. They filed a

motion to enter its charging lien (25% of the actual and current market values of the litigated properties as its attys fees.) Despite due notice, Metrobank failed to appear and oppose, so the RD annotated the atty's liens on the TCTs.

- Alejandro (plaintiffs) filed a motion to dismiss which was granted with prejudice to the earlier order of annotation. The lawyers filed a motion to fix the atty's fees based on quantum meruit. CA affiremed order to Metrobank to pay ALfariz and ASsociates attys

fees.

ISSUE: WoN lawyers are entitled to atty's fees HELD: NO

RATIO:

1. A charging lien to be enforceable requires as a condition sine qua non a judgment for money and execution in pursuance of such judgment. In the case at bar, the civil cases were dismissed upon the initiative of the plaintiffs "in view of the full

satisfaction of their claims". The dismissal neither provided for any money judgment nor made any monetary award to any litigant. The charging lien was WITHOUT ANY LEGAL BASIS.

2. The lien of respondent is not of a nature which attached to the property in litigation but is at most a personal claim enforceable by a writ of execution.

3. While a client cannot defeat an atty's right to his charging lien by dismissing the case, terminating the services of his counsel, waiving his cause or interest in favor of the adverse party or compromising his

action, this rule cannot find application here as the termination of the cases was not at the instance of the client, but of the opposing party. 4. There is an obvious necessity for a hearing because the persons who are entitled to or who must pay attys fees have the right to be heard upon the question of propriety or amount.

5. Regarding American jurisprudence stating a contrary rule - the Court held that in the absence of a statute or special agreement providing otherwise, the general rule is that an atty has no lien on the land

152 DORONILA-TIOSECO v CA

FACTS:

AS a result of dispute among the heirs of the late Alfonso Doronila and their counsel Ramon Gonzales, over his claim for attorney's fees, the RTC denied the heirs' Motion to Cancel Attorney's lien and declare Ramon Gonzales entitiled to 10% of the shares of the heirs of the late Doronila. Both of the parties appealed the decision.

Ramon Gonzales filed a motion to annotate attorney's lien, praying that his attorney's lien be annotated on the title of parcels of land of the estate which the heirs had inherited.

Administrator of the estate opposed the said motion by contending that an attorney's lien does not extend to land and that the proper remedy is attachment.

Trial court granted the counsel's motion for annotation. ISSUE:

W/n an attorney's lien extends to land... HELD:

"We have ruled that an attorney's lien does not extend to land which is the subject matter of the litigation." (eto lang yung sinabi sa case... ung mga prior cases, applicable...)

ISSUE:

W/n the trial court retained jurisdiction to grand Ramon Gonzales' Motion to Annotate Attorney's lien on the title of the parcels of land of the estate after the perfection of the appeal of both the petitioners and respondent from the order declaring Ramon Gonzales entitled to attorney' fees...

HELD:

Trial court has no jurisdiction. Motion was filed long after they have perfected their appeals, therefore the trial court had no more jurisdiction.

153 GATCHALIAN PROMOTIONS v NALDOZA

Facts:

 Gatchalian Promotions Talents Pool, Inc. filed a disbarment case against Atty. Promo Naldoza, their former counsel.

 Naldoza appealed a decision of the POEA. In line with this, Gatchalian assers that the disbarments should prosper since Naldoza committed the ff acts:

o Appealing a decision, knowing that the same was already final and executory

Page 174 of 203

o Deceitfully obtaining two thousand, five hundred and fifty-five US dollars (US$2,555) from complainant, allegedly for ―cash bond‖ in the appealed case

o Issuing a spurious receipt to conceal his illegal act.

 Naldoza was claimed to ask for a ―Cash Bond‘ in UNITED STATES DOLLAR amounting to TWO THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED FIFTY FIVE (U.S. $2,555.00) (for payment) to the Supreme Court in order that the said appealed case could be heard or acted upon by the Supreme Court.

 Gatchalian came to know that there was no such Cash Bond paid to the SC, and in fact, the fees were only nominal (P622). Moreover, the receipt that Naldoza presented to Gatchalian which allegedly emanated from the SC was spurious.

 An estafa case was filed against Naldoza. It was later on dismissed, but he was held liable for the amount of $2,555.

 Naldoza seeks that he not be suspended in the practice of law.

Issue:

 W/N Atty Naldoza should be punished for his acts? Held:

 Yes.

 Atty. Primo Naldoza is DISBARRED, not just suspended.

 On the first issue:

o Complainant has failed to present proof regarding the status of the appeal. Neither has there been any showing that the appeal was dismissed on the ground that the POEA Decision had become final and executory. Worse, there has been no evidence that respondent knew that the case was

unappealable. Indeed, the records of this Court shows that the Petition for Review was dismissed for petitioner‘s (Gatchalian‘s) failure to submit an Affidavit of Service and a legible duplicate of the assailed Order. Clearly, this charge has no leg to stand on.

 On the next two issues:

o When Naldoza paid P10,000 and issued a check to complainant as his ―moral obligation,‖ he indirectly admitted the charge. Normally, this is not the actuation of one who is falsely accused of appropriating the money of another. This is an admission of misconduct. (RC Note: Naldoza claims that Gatchalian owes him P180T in attorneys‘ fees, and after accounting, he paid him P10T as his moral obligation)

o the amount of $2,555 was not a part of his attorney‘s lien. He demanded the money from his

client on the pretext that it was needed for the Petition before the Supreme Court, but he actually converted it to his personal gain.

 Not only did he misappropriate the money entrusted to him; he also faked a reason to cajole his client to part with his money. Worse, he had the gall to falsify an official receipt of this Court to cover up his misdeeds. Clearly, he does not deserve to continue being a member of the bar.

154 VDA DE BARRERA v LAPUT

Facts:

 Casiano Laput was Nieves Rillas Vda de Barrera‘s counsel in the settlement proceedings for the estate of de Barrera‘s husband.

 One time, Laput presented a ―Notice for Rendition of Final Accounting and Partition of Estate‖ to de Barrera. Barrerra refused to signed and asked Laput to just leave the document in order that she may ask someone to interpret it for her.

 But Laput became angry and even placed a revolver on the lap of de Barrera (who actually was 72 years old). This compelled the old lady to sign the document.

 Laput denied the charges… Issue:

Should Laput be disciplined?

In document Instituto Nicaragüense de Turismo (página 97-100)