A.C. No.

3149 August 17, 1994

CERINA B. LIKONG, petitioner,
vs.
ATTY. ALEXANDER H. LIM, respondent.
PADILLA, J.:
Cerina B. Likong filed this administrative case
against Atty. Alexander H. Lim, seeking the latter's
disbarment for alleged malpractice and grave
misconduct.
n !eptember "#$%, complainant obtained a loan of
&#',"((.(( from a certain )eesnell L. *ap.
Complainant executed a promissory note in favor of
*ap and a deed of assignment, assigning to *ap
pension checks +hich she regularly receives from
the ,nited !tates government as a +ido+ of a ,!
pensioner. -he aforementioned deed of assignment
states that the same shall be irrevocable until the
loan is fully paid. Complainant like+ise executed a
special po+er of attorney authori.ing *ap to get,
demand, collect and receive her pension checks
from the post office at -agbilaran City. -he above
documents +ere apparently prepared and notari.ed
by respondent Alexander H. Lim, *ap's counsel.
About three /01 months after the execution of the
aforementioned special po+er of attorney,
complainant informed the -agbilaran City post office
that she +as revoking the special po+er of attorney
preventing complainant from getting her pension
checks from the -agbilaran City post office, As a
conse2uence, )eesnell *ap filed a complaint for
in3unction +ith damages against complainant. He
+as represented by Atty Lim the respondent in the
case.
On July 1985, complainant and Yap filed a joint motion to
allow the latter to withdraw the pension checks, wherein
Cerina was not represented by her counsel, same with
u! 1985 where a compromise a!reement were entered
into by Cerina and Yap, tty "im wasn#t there to
represent her client$
%ith this, petitioner filed a complaint for disbarment,
based on the followin! alle!ations&
' complainant was pre(ented from seekin! assistance,
ad(ise and si!nature of any of her two )*+ lawyers, no
copy thereof was furnished to either of them or at least to
complainant herself despite the latter-s pleas to be
furnished copies of the same$
' Complainant was e(en ad(ised by respondent that it
was not necessary for her to consult her lawyers under the
pretense that& )a+ this could only jeopardi.e the
settlement, )b+ she would only be incurrin! enormous
e/pense if she consulted a new lawyer, )c+ respondent
was assistin! her anyway, )d+ she had nothin! to worry
about the documents foisted upon her to si!n, )e+
complainant need not come to court afterwards to sa(e
her time, and in any e(ent respondent already took care of
e(erythin!,
' Complainant had been pre(ented from e/hibitin! fully
her case by means of fraud, deception and some other
form of mendacity practiced on her by respondent,
' 0inally, respondent fraudulently or without authority
assumed to represent complainant and conni(ed in her
defeat,
ISSUE& %hether or not respondent is !uilty of
misconduct under the Code of 1rofessional
2esponsibility$
HELD& 3he 4upreme Court held that Y54, the
respondent was !uilty of 674CO89:C3 under the Code
of 1rofessional 2esponsibility particularly Canon 9 which
states that Negotiations with opposite party. A lawyer
should not in any way communicate upon the subject of
controversy with a party represented by counsel; much
less should he undertake to negotiate or compromise the
matter with him, but should deal only with his counsel. It
is incumbent upon the lawyer most particularly to avoid
everything that may tend to mislead a party not
represented by counsel and he should not undertake to
advise him as to the law, and !anon ".#", $.#% and
"&.#'.
4uch acts of the respondent constitutin! malpractice and
!ra(e misconduct cannot be left unpunished for not only
do they erode confidence and trust in the le!al profession,
they likewise pre(ent justice from bein! attained$
2espondent was suspended from the practice of law for 1
year$