Lawyers compensation

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 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.

Tan vs. Sabandal, 206 SCRA 473 (1992)

DOCTRINES: The practice of law is not a matter of right. No moral qualification for bar membership is
more important than truthfulness or candor. FACTS: Respondent Sabandal passed the 1978 Bar
Examinations but was denied to take his oath in view of the finding of the Court that he was guilty of
unauthorized practice of law. Since then, he had filed numerous petitions for him to be allowed to take his
lawyer's oath. Acting to his 1989 petition, the Court directed the executive judge of the province where
Sabandal is domiciled to submit a comment on respondent's moral fitness to be a member of the Bar. In
compliance therewith, the executive judge stated in his comment that he is not aware of any acts
committed by the respondent as would disqualify him to from admission to the Bar. However, he added
that respondent has a pending civil case before his court for cancellation/reversion proceedings, in which
respondent, then working as Land Investigator of the Bureau of Lands, is alleged to have secured a free
patent and later a certificate of title to a parcel of land which, upon investigation, turned out to be a
swampland and not susceptible of acquisition under a free patent, and which he later mortgaged to the
bank. The mortgage was later foreclosed and the land subsequently sold at public auction and
respondent has not redeemed the land since then. The case was however been settled through amicable
settlement. The said amicable settlement canceled the OCT under Free Patent in the name of Sabandal
and his mortgage in the bank; provided for the surrender of the certificate of title to the RD for proper
annotation; reverted to the mass of public domain the land covered by the aforesaid certificate of title with
respondent refraining from exercising acts of possession or ownership over the said land. Respondent
also paid the bank a certain sum for the loan and interest. ISSUE: Whether the respondent may be
admitted to the practice of law considering that he already submitted three (3) testimonials regarding his
good moral character, and his pending civil case has been terminated. HELD: His petition must be
denied. Time and again, it has been held that practice of law is not a matter of right. It is a privilege
bestowed upon individuals who are not only learned in the law but who are also known to possess good
moral character. It should be recalled that respondent worked as Land Investigator at the Bureau of
Lands. Said employment facilitated his procurement of the free patent title over the property which he
could not but have known was a public land. This was manipulative on his part and does not speak well of
his moral character. It is a manifestation of gross dishonesty while in the public service, which cannot be
erased by the termination of the case and where no determination of guilt or innocence was made
because the suit has been compromised. This is a sad reflection of his sense of honor and fair dealings.
Moreover, his failure to reveal to the Court the pendency of the civil case for Reversion filed against him
during the period that he was submitting several petitions and motions for reconsiderations reveal his lack
of candor and truthfulness. Although, the term "good moral character" admits of broad dimensions, it has
been defined as "including at least common dishonesty." It has also been held that no moral qualification
for membership is more important than truthfulness or candor.

Respondent Sabandal passed the 1978 Bar Examinations but was denied to take his oath in view of the
finding of the Court that he was guilty of unauthorized practice of law. Since then, he had filed numerous
petitions for him to be allowed to take his lawyer's oath.Acting to his 1989 petition, the Court directed the
executive judge of the province where Sabandal is domiciled to submit a comment on respondent's moral
fitness to be a member of the Bar. In compliance therewith, the executive judge stated in his comment
that he is not aware of any acts committed by the respondent as would disqualify him to from admission
to the Bar. However, he added that respondent has a pending civil case before his court for
cancellation/reversion proceedings, in which respondent, then working as Land Investigator of the Bureau
of Lands, is alleged to have secured a free patent and later a certificate of title to a parcel of land which,
upon investigation, turned out to be a swampland and not susceptible of acquisition under a free patent,
and which he later mortgaged to the bank. The mortgage was later foreclosed and the land subsequently
sold at public auction and respondent has not redeemed the land since then.

The case was however been settled through amicable settlement. The said amicable settlement canceled
the OCT under Free Patent in the name of Sabandal and his mortgage in the bank; provided for the
surrender of the certificate of title to the RD for proper annotation; reverted to the mass of public domain
the land covered by the aforesaid certificate of title with respondent refraining from exercising acts of
possession or ownership over the said land. Respondent also paid the bank a certain sum for the loan
and interest.

ISSUE: Whether the respondent may be admitted to the practice of law considering that he already
submitted three (3) testimonials regarding his good moral character, and his pending civil case has been
terminated.

HELD:
His petition must be denied.

Time and again, it has been held that practice of law is not a matter of right. It is a privilege bestowed
upon individuals who are not only learned in the law but who are also known to possess good moral
character.

It should be recalled that respondent worked as Land Investigator at the Bureau of Lands. Said
employment facilitated his procurement of the free patent title over the property which he could not but
have known was a public land. This was manipulative on his part and does not speak well of his moral
character. It is a manifestation of gross dishonesty while in the public service, which cannot be erased by
the termination of the case and where no determination of guilt or innocence was made because the suit
has been compromised. This is a sad reflection of his sense of honor and fair dealings.

Moreover, his failure to reveal to the Court the pendency of the civil case for Reversion filed against him
during the period that he was submitting several petitions and motions for reconsiderations reveal his lack
of candor and truthfulness.

Although, the term "good moral character" admits of broad dimensions, it has been defined as "including
at least common dishonesty." It has also been held that no moral qualification for membership is more
important than truthfulness or candor.
TAPUCAR VS TAPUCAR
by The ScepticJuly 22, 2015

EN BANC[ A.C. No. 4148, July 30, 1998 ]

REMEDIOS RAMIREZ TAPUCAR, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. LAURO L. TAPUCAR, RESPONDENT

Facts:

In a letter-complaint dated November 22, 1993, complainant Remedios Ramirez Tapucar sought the
disbarment of her husband, Atty. Lauro L. Tapucar, on the ground of continuing grossly immoral conduct
for cohabiting with a certain Elena (Helen) Peña under scandalous circumstances.

Prior to this complaint, respondent was already administratively charged four times for conduct
unbecoming an officer of the court. in Administrative Matter No. 1740, resolved on April 11, 1980,
respondent, at that time the Judge of Butuan City, was meted the penalty of six months suspension
without pay, while in Administrative Matter Nos. 1720, 1911 and 2300-CFI, which were consolidated, this
Court on January 31, 1981 ordered the separation from service of respondent.

Issue:

Whether or not respondent violated canon 1 of the code of professional responsibility

Ruling:

Yes.

The Code of Professional Responsibility mandates that:

Rule 1.01. A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
Rule 7.03 A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor
should he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal
profession.

A lawyer is expected at all times to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession by faithfully
performing his duties to society, to the bar, to the courts and to his clients. Exacted from him, as a
member of the profession charged with the responsibility to stand as a shield in the defense of what is
right, are such positive qualities of decency, truthfulness and responsibility that have been compendiously
described as “moral character.” To achieve such end, every lawyer needs to strive at all times to honor
and maintain the dignity of his profession, and thus improve not only the public regard for the Bar but also
the administration of justice.
Case Digest: De Mijares v. Villaluz

Priscilla Castillo Vda. De Mijares, complainant, versus Justice Onofre A. Villaluz (retired),
respondent.
Adm. Case No. 4431 June 19, 1997

Facts:

Complainant Judge Priscilla Castillo Vda. De Mijares is the presiding judge in Pasay City while
respondent Onofre A. Villaluz, a retired Justice of the Court of Appeals, is a consult at the Presidential
Anti-Crime Commission.

Judge Mijares is actually widowed by the death of her first husband, Primitivo Mijares. She obtained a
decree declaring her husband presumptively dead, after an absence of 16 years. Thus, she got married
to respondent in a civil wedding on January 7, 1994 before Judge Myrna Lim Verano.

They (complainant and respondent) knew each other when the latter, who was at that time the Presiding
Judge of the Criminal Circuit Court in Pasig, was trying a murder case involving the death of the son of
Mijares.

During their marriage, complainant judge discovered that respondent was having an illicit affair with
another woman. Respondent denied such rather he uttered harsh words to the complainant judge. As a
result, they lived separately and did not get in touch with one another and the respondent did not bother
to apologize for what happened.

Through Judge Ramon Makasiar, complainant knew that respondent married Lydia Geraldez.
Complainant then filed a complaint against respondent for disbarment for the latter immorally and
bigamously entered into a second marriage while having a subsisting marriage and distorted the truth by
stating his civil status as single.

In his defense, he contended that his marriage to the complainant judge was a “sham marriage”; that he
voluntarily signed the marriage contract to help her in the administrative case for immorality filed against
her by her legal researcher. Likewise, he maintained that when he contracted his marriage with
complainant, he had a subsisting marriage with his first wife because the decision declaring
the annulment of such marriage had not yet become final and executory or published.

Judge Purisima the found respondent guilty of deceit and grossly immoral conduct and later on affirmed
by the Court.

Issue:

a. Whether or not marriage of complainant and respondent valid

b. Whether or not the marriage of complainant and respondent was a sham marriage

Ruling:

a. Yes. It was a valid marriage. All the essential and formal requisites of a valid marriage under Articles 2
and 3 of the Family Code were satisfied and complied. Given the circumstance that he was
facing criminal case for bigamy and assuming for the sake of argument that the judgment in civil case
declaring the annulment of marriage between respondent and the first wife had not attained complete
finality, the marriage between complainant and respondent is not void but only voidable.
b. As to the issue that it was a “sham” marriage is too incredible to deserve serious consideration. Thus,
former Justice Onofre Villaluz is found guilty of immoral conduct in violation of the Code
of Professional Responsibility; he is hereby suspended from practiceof law for two years with the specific
warning.

SPOUSES FRANKLIN AND LOURDES OLBES VS. ATTY VICTOR V DECIEMBRE (April 27,2005)

FACTS:

Complainants were government employees. Through respondent, Lourdes renewed a loan

application from Rodela Loans Inc., in the amount of P10,000.00. She issued and delivered 5 PNB blank
checks, which served as collateral for the approved loan as well as for the future loans. Lourdes paid
respondent P14,874.37 intended to the loan plus surcharges, penalties, and interests, for which the latter
issued a receipt. Notwithstanding the full payment of the loan, respondent filled up the blank checks
entrusted to him by writing on those checks amounts that had not been agreed upon at all and deposited
the same checks which were dishonored upon presentment because the account is already closed.
Thereafter, he filed a criminal case against complainants for estafa and for violation of B.P. 22. Thus,
complainants filed a verified petition for the disbarment of Atty. Deciembre and charged the respondent
with willful and deliberate acts of dishonesty, falsification and conduct unbecoming a member of the Bar.

ISSUE: Whether or not respondent lawyer is guilty of gross misconduct and violation of Rules 1.01 and
7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

HELD: YES.

Respondent lawyer violated Rules 1.01 and 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility for he
seriously transgressed by his malevolent act of filling up the blank checks by indicating amounts that had
not been agreed upon at all and despite full knowledge that the loan supposed to be secured by the
checks had already been paid. His was a brazen act of falsification of a commercial document, resorted
to for his material gain. Respondent is clearly guilty of serious dishonesty and professional misconduct.
He committed an act indicative of moral depravity not expected from, and highly unbecoming a member
of the bar. His propensity for employing deceit and misrepresentation is reprehensible. His misuse of the
filled-up checks that led to the detention of one petitioner is loathsome.

Respondent is hereby indefinitely SUSPENDED from the practice of law.

Ui v. Bonifacio

A.C. No. 3319. June 8, 2000

Petitioner: Leslie Ui

Respondent: Atty. Iris Bonifacio

Facts of the case:

Leslie Ui filed an administrative case for disbarment against Atty. Iris Bonifacio on grounds of immoral
conduct. Atty. Bonifacio allegedly is having an illicit relationship with Carlos Ui, husband of Leslie Ui,
whom they begot two children. According to petitioner, Carlos Ui admitted to him about the relationship
between them and Atty. Bonifacio. This led Leslie Ui to confront said respondent to stop their illicit affair
but of to no avail. According however to respondent, she is a victim in the situation. When respondent met
Carlos Ui, she had known him to be a bachelor but with children to an estranged Chinese woman who is
already in Amoy, China. Moreover, the two got married in Hawaii, USAtherefore legalizing their
relationship. When respondent knew of the real status of Carlos Ui, she stopped their relationship.
Respondent further claims that she and Carlos Ui never lived together as the latter lived with his children
to allow them to gradually accept the situation. Respondent however presented a misrepresented copy of
her marriage contract.

Issue: Did the respondent conduct herself in an immoral manner for which she deserves to be barred
from the practice of law?

Held: NO. The practice of law is a privilege. A bar candidate does not have the right to enjoy the practice
of the legal profession simply by passing the bar examinations. It is a privilege that can be revoked,
subject to the mandate of due process, once a lawyer violates his oath and the dictates of legal ethics. If
good moral character is a sine qua non for admission to the bar, then the continued possession of good
moral character is also requisite for retaining membership in the legal profession.

Membership in the bar may be terminated when a lawyer ceases to have good moral character. A lawyer
may be disbarred for “grossly immoral conduct or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral
turpitude”. A member of the bar should have moral integrity in addition to professional probity.

Circumstances existed which should have aroused respondent’s suspicion that something was amiss in
her relationship with Ui, and moved her to ask probing questions. Respondent was imprudent in
managing her personal affairs. However, the fact remains that her relationship with Carlos Ui, clothed as
it was with what respondent believed was a valid marriage, cannot be considered as an immoral. For
immorality connotes conduct that shows indifference to the moral norms of society and to opinion of good
and respectable member of the community. Moreover, for such conduct to warrant disciplinary action, the
same must be grossly immoral, that is it must be so corrupt and false as to constitute a criminal act or so
unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree.

A member of the Bar and officer of the court is not only required to refrain from adulterous relationships . .
. but must also so behave himself as to avoid scandalizing the public by creating the belief that he is
flouting those moral standards.

Respondents act of immediately distancing herself from Carlos Ui upon discovering his true civil status
belies just that alleged moral indifference and proves that she had no intention of flaunting the law and
the high moral standard of the legal profession.

LETTER OF ATTY. CECILIO Y. AREVALO, JR.,

by The ScepticJuly 21, 2015
EN BANC[ B.M. No. 1370, May 09, 2005 ]
LETTER OF ATTY. CECILIO Y. AREVALO, JR., REQUESTING EXEMPTION FROM PAYMENT OF
IBP DUES
Facts:
In his letter, dated 22 September 2004, petitioner sought exemption from payment of IBP dues in the
amount of P12,035.00 as alleged unpaid accountability for the years 1977-2005. He alleged that after
being admitted to the Philippine Bar in 1961, he became part of the Philippine Civil Service from July
1962 until 1986, then migrated to, and worked in, the USA in December 1986 until his retirement in the
year 2003. He maintained that he cannot be assessed IBP dues for the years that he was working in the
Philippine Civil Service since the Civil Service law prohibits the practice of one’s profession while in
government service, and neither can he be assessed for the years when he was working in the USA.

Issue:
 whether or nor petitioner is entitled to exemption from payment of his dues during the time that he was
inactive in the practice of law
Ruling:
The supreme court held that the payment of dues is a necessary consequence of membership in the
IBP, of which no one is exempt. This means that the compulsory nature of payment of dues subsists for
as long as one’s membership in the IBP remains regardless of the lack of practice of, or the type of
practice, the member is engaged in.
There is nothing in the law or rules which allows exemption from payment of membership dues. At most,
as correctly observed by the IBP, he could have informed the Secretary of the Integrated Bar of his
intention to stay abroad before he left. In such case, his membership in the IBP could have been
terminated and his obligation to pay dues could have been discontinued.
But we must here emphasize that the practice of law is not a property right but a mere privilege, and as
such must bow to the inherent regulatory power of the Court to exact compliance with the lawyer’s public
responsibilities.
Advertisements

SANTOS JR. VS. ATTY LLAMAS (AC 4749 01/20/2000)

FACTS: This is a complaint for misrepresentation and non-payment of bar membership dues filed against
respondent Atty. Francisco R. Llamas who for a number of years has not indicated the proper PTR and
IBP O.R. Nos. and data (date & palce of issuance) in his pleadings. If at all, he only indicated “IBP Rizal
259060” but he has been using this for at least 3 years already, as shown by the following attached
sample pleadings in various courts in 1995, 1996 & 1997. Respondent’s last payment of his IBP dues
was in 1991. Since then he has not paid or remitted any amount to cover his membership fees up to the
present. He likewise admit that as appearing in the pleadings submitted by complainant to this Court, he
indicated "IBP-Rizal 259060" in the pleadings he filed in court, at least for the years 1995, 1996, and
1997, thus misrepresenting that such was his IBP chapter membership and receipt number for the years
in which those pleadings were filed. He claims, however, that he is only engaged in a "limited" practice
and that he believes in good faith that he is exempt from the payment of taxes, such as income tax, under
R.A. No. 7432, as a senior citizen since 1992.

ISSUES: Whether or not the respondent has misled the court about his standing in the IBP by using the
same IBP O.R. number in his pleadings of at least 6 years and therefore liable for his actions.

Whether or not the respondent is exempt from paying his membership dues owing to limited practice of
law and for being a senior citizen.

HELD: Yes. By indicating "IBP-Rizal 259060" in his pleadings and thereby misrepresenting to the public
and the courts that he had paid his IBP dues to the Rizal Chapter, respondent is guilty of violating the
Code of Professional Responsibility which provides: Rule 1.01 – A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful,
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. His act is also a violation of Rule 10.01 which provides that: A
lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court; nor mislead or allow the court
to be misled by any artifice.

No. Rule 139-A requires that every member of the Integrated Bar shall pay annual dues and default
thereof for six months shall warrant suspension of membership and if nonpayment covers a period of 1-
year, default shall be a ground for removal of the delinquent’s name from the Roll of Attorneys. It does not
matter whether or not respondent is only engaged in “limited” practice of law. Moreover, While it is true
that R.A. No. 7432, grants senior citizens "exemption from the payment of individual income taxes:
provided, that their annual taxable income does not exceed the poverty level as determined by the
National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA) for that year," the exemption however does not
include payment of membership or association dues.
Respondent's failure to pay his IBP dues and his misrepresentation in the pleadings he filed in court
indeed merit the most severe penalty. However, in view of respondent's advanced age, his express
willingness to pay his dues and plea for a more temperate application of the law, we believe the penalty of
one year suspension from the practice of law or until he has paid his IBP dues, whichever is later, is
appropriate. Respondent Atty. Francisco R. Llamas is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for ONE (1)
YEAR, or until he has paid his IBP dues, whichever is later. Non suspension from practice of law for using
intemperate languages in pleadings

HON. MARIBETH RODRIGUEZ-MANAHAN, Presiding Judge, Municipal Trial Court, San Mateo,
Rizal
vs
. ATTY. RODOLFO FLORES
[A.C. No. 8954. November 13, 2013.] DEL CASTILLO,]

Facts:
A complaint for Damages was filed before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of San Mateo, Rizal. Respondent
Atty. Flores appeared as counsel for the defendant. He filed his Pre-Trial Brief without proof of MCLE compliance hence; it
was expunged from the records without prejudice to the filing of another Pre-Trial Brief containing the required MCLE
compliance. The preliminary conference was reset several times for failure of respondent to appear and submit his Pre-
Trial Brief indicating thereon his MCLE compliance. The court
a quo
gave respondent last chance to submit his Pre-Trial Brief with stern warning that failure to do so shall be considered a waiver
on his part. Respondent later filed his Pre-Trial Brief bearing an MCLE number which was merely superimposed without
indicating the date and place of compliance. During the preliminary conference, respondent manifested that he will submit proof
of compliance of his MCLE on the following day. The Investigating Judge found Atty. Flores to have failed to give due respect to
the court by failing to obey court orders, by failing to submit proof of his compliance with the Mandatory Continuing Legal
Education (MCLE) requirement, and for using intemperate language in his pleadings. The Investigating Judge recommended
that Atty. Flores be suspended from the practice of law for one year.

Issue:
Whether respondent should be suspended from practice of law for using intemperate language in his pleadings

Held:
NO. There is no doubt that Atty. Flores failed to obey the trial court's order to submit proof of his MCLE compliance
notwithstanding the several opportunities given him. Atty. Flores also employed intemperate language in his
pleadings. As an officer of the court, Atty. Flores is expected to be circumspect in his language. However, the court found
the recommended penalty too harsh and not commensurate with the infractions committed by the respondent. It appears that
this is the first infraction committed by respondent. Also, the court is not prepared to impose on the respondent the penalty of
one-year suspension for humanitarian reasons. Respondent manifested before this Court that he has been in the practice of
law for half a century. Thus, he is already in his twilight years.