Fernandez vs. Hon.

Bello

Facts: Atty. Manuel Fernandez was the counsel of Timotea Perreyras, who instituted special proceedings
for her appointment as guardian over her minor brothers.

Upon appointment, she petitioned the court for authority to sell a nipa land for the purpose of paying
outstanding obligations to Umangay.

Her request was granted and the nipa land was sold to Umangay.

However, the nipa land sold by Timotea had already been previously sold with to Ricardo Perreyras and
Umangay by Florentino Perreyras, father of Timotea.

The interest of Ricardo and Umangay was then sold were in turn sold for P200 to Atty. Manuel and
another P200 for services rendered by him.

Judge Bello issued an order requiring Atty. Manuel to show cause why he should not be suspended from
the practice of law and declared in contempt for having abused his relationship with Timotea and taken
money from her without approval of the court.

Atty. Manuel explained that when he received the P200, he was no longer the counsel of Timotea.

However, the court found Atty. Manuel guilty of contempt because he had taken P400 from the
proceeds of the sale without previous approval from the court and his conduct anomalous because he
instituted the guardianship proceedings only to enable him to collect the unpaid attorney’s fees.

Issue: Whether or not the desire of the judge to have portions of Atty. Manuel’s motion for
reconsideration be stricken out for employing strong language should be granted.

Held: No, Judge Bello used language such as calling the act of Atty. Manuel anomalous and unbecoming
and charging him of obtaining his fee through maneuvers of documents from Timotea. Judge Bello
himself made insulting remarks in his orders which provoked Atty. Manuel for the language he used. If a
judge desires not to be insulted, he should start using temperate language himself.
Likong vs. Lim

Facts: Likong loaned P92,100 from Yap.

She executed a deed of assignment assigning Yap pension checks which she regularly receives from US
government as a widow of a US pensioner.

SPA, prepared by Lim, Yap’s counsel, authorized Yap to get, demand, collect, and receive Likong’s
pension checks.

The SPA was revoked after 3 months so Yap filed a complaint for injunction with damages. They filed a
motion allowing Yap to withdraw the pension checks which motion does not bear the signature of
complainant’s counsel.

They entered a compromise agreement without the participation of Likong’s counsel.

Likong admitted an obligation to Yap of P150,000. It was likewise stated therein that Lkong and Yap
agreed that the amount would be paid in monthly installments over a period of 54 months at an interest
of 40% per annum discounted every six (6) months.

Reason for filing of complaint:

-prevented from seeking assistance, advise and signature of any of her two (2) lawyers; no copy thereof
was furnished to either of them

-was even advised by respondent she would only be incurring enormous expense if she consulted a new
lawyer

- Finally, respondent fraudulently or without authority assumed to represent complainant and connived
in her defeat; . . .

Atty. Lim argued that Likong was abandoned by her lawyers because she was not able to pay their fees.

Issue: Whether or not Lim’s conduct is unbecoming as a member of the legal profession.

Held: Yes. There is no showing that Atty. Lim tried to inform Likong’s counsel or inform the trial court of
the abandonment. Respondent saw an opportunity to take advantage of the situation.

Rule 8.02 - A lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly, encroach upon the professional employment of
another lawyer; however, it is the right of any lawyer, without fear or favor, to give proper advice and
assistance to those seeking relief against unfaithful or neglectful counsel.

Lim is suspended for 1 year from the practice of law.

US vs. Ney and Bosque

Facts: The Supreme Court decided that Bosque was not entitled to admission to practice law in the
Philippines because after the change of sovereignty he had elected to remain a Spanish subject and as
such was not qualified for admission to the bar.

He made an arrangement with Ney, a practicing attorney, to carry on business together, sending out a
circular signed "Ney & Bosque," stating that they had established an office for the general practice of
law in all the courts of the Islands and that Bosque would devote himself especially to consultation and
office work relating to Spanish law.

Papers from the office were signed not with the firm name alone nor with any designation of the firm as
attorneys, but with the words "Ney & Bosque — C.W. Ney, abogado."

The defendants disclaim any intentional contempt, and defend their acts as being within the law.

The illegality in this instance was aggravated by the fact that one of the agents so named was a person
residing in these Islands to whom this court had expressly denied admission to the bar.

Issue: Should either of these defendants be thus punished for contempt?

Held: The repeated irregular signature of pleadings by an attorney in the name of a firm improperly
constituted, with one partner, who, by an order of this court, had been denied the right to practice, and
the participation by him in an act of contempt committed by such partner, is misbehavior which renders
him guilty of contempt.