Balingit Vs Cervantes

103.
Balingit vs Cervantes
Facts: Complainant has two sons Jose Antonio Balingit, Jr. and Carlo Balingit. His sons were riding their motorcycles
which collided with a car driven by David A. Alizadeh. Jose Antonio, Jr. was dead on arrival at the hospital while his
passenger Kristopher Rocky Kabigting, Jr. suffered physical injuries and Carlo suffered serious physical injuries. A criminal
negligence was filed against David. Complainant together with Carlo, Kristopher and the heirs of Jose Antonio, Jr. hired
the respondent in filing a separate civil suit for damages and an administrative case with the Professional Regulation
Commission (PRC) against David, who passed the physician board exam. A demand letter was sent to David for payment
of P2, 000, 000.00 plus 25% as attorney’s fees. A letter was sent informing Atty. Cervantes about the pending criminal
case against David and requesting issuance of David’s license to practice medicine be deferred or suspended until
termination of the criminal case. The PRC replied and informed Atty. Cervantes of the requirements in order to file an
administrative case against David. Atty. Cervantes signed and prepared an Agreement about the terms of respondents’
engagement addressed to Kristopher, Carlo, and the heirs of Jose Antonio, Jr. which they did not sign. Respondents
failed to institute the separate civil suit for damages agreed upon while in the criminal case complainant and the
representatives of David agreed to settle. A Compromise Agreement was signed. Upon hearing the Compromise
Agreement, Atty. Cervantes demanded 10% of the amount of the compromise as the attorney’s fee and P5, 000.00 as
appearance fee which the complainant refused to pay. Atty. Cervantes filed a criminal complaint for estafa against the
complainant while the complainant filed the present disbarment case against respondents before the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines-Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD). Respondents filled separate motions for extension of time to
submit their answers. Atty. Delarmente failed to file his answer whereas Atty. Cervantes filed a motion to admit his
verified answer. Atty. Cervantes denied receiving money and did not receive the acceptance and docket fees to the case.
ISSUE: Whether or not the respondent violated Canon 20, and Rule 20.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
Held: Yes. It is a core ethical principle that lawyers owe fidelity to their clients’ cause and must always be mindful of the
trust and confidence reposed in them. They are duty bound to observe candor, fairness, and loyalty in all their dealings
and transactions with their clients. We have repeatedly held that when a lawyer accepts a case, he undertakes to give
his utmost attention, skill, and competence to it. His client has the right to expect that he will discharge his duties
diligently and exert his best efforts, learning, and ability to prosecute or defend his client’s cause with reasonable
dispatch. Atty. Cervantes demanded payment of P5,000.00 appearance fee and 10% of the settlement as success fee
even though the hearing was for the criminal case and the Compromise Agreement was entered in the course of the
criminal proceedings; thus, outside the scope of respondents’ engagement. Indeed, it is highly improper for a lawyer to
impose additional professional fees upon his client which were never mentioned nor agreed upon at the time of the
engagement of his services. Rule 20.4 of the CPR advises lawyers to avoid controversies with clients concerning their
compensation and to resort to judicial action only to prevent imposition, injustice or fraud. This is because matters of
fees present an irreconcilable conflict of interests between a client and his lawyer. In these exceptional circumstances, a
lawyer may enforce his right to his fees by filing the necessary petition as an incident of the main action in which his
services were rendered. In addition, we have previously held that when a lawyer receives money from his client for a
particular purpose and the lawyer does not use the money for such purpose, the lawyer must immediately return the
money to his client. WHEREFORE, Atty. Teodoro B. Delarmente and Atty. Renato M. Cervantes are
hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for six (6) months. Both are STERNLY WARNED thata repetition of the
same or similar acts shall be dealt with more severely. They are also DIRECTED to return to complainant the amount of
P45,000.00. Finally, respondents are DIRECTED to report to this Court the date of their receipt of this Decision to enable
this Court to determine when their suspension shall take effect.

Balingit Vs Cervantes

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Balingit Vs Cervantes

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Balingit Vs Cervantes

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

103.

You might also like