39: Cerina B. Likong vs. Atty. Alexander H. Lim, A.C. No.

3149, August 17, 1994

Facts: This is a disbarment case failed by Cerina against Atty Lim. What happened
was complainant Cerina B. Likong executed a promissory note and a deed of
assignment assigning to Geesnell L. Yap pension checks which she regularly
receives from the US government as a widow of a US pensioner. The deed of
assignment states that the same shall be irrevocable until her loan is fully paid.
Cerina likewise executed a special power of attorney authorizing Yap to get her
pension checks from the post office. About three months after the execution of the
SPA, Cerina informed the post office that she was revoking the SPA. Yap filed a
complaint for injunction against Cerina. Respondent Alexander H. Lim appeared as
counsel for Yap while Attys. Roland B. Inting and Erico B. Aumentado appeared for
Cerina. Cerina and Yap filed a joint motion, which does not bear the signatures of
Cerina's counsel, to allow Yap to withdraw the pension checks. They also entered
into a compromise agreement without the participation of Cerina's counsel. In the
compromise agreement, it was stated that complainant Cerina admitted an
obligation to Yap and that they agreed that the amount would be paid in monthly
installments. The compromise agreement prepared by respondent increased
Cerinas debt to Yap and the terms contained therein are grossly prejudicial to
Cerina.
Contention of Petitioner: Cerina filed a complaint for disbarment, alleging that in all
the motions, she was prevented from seeking assistance, advice and signature of
any of her two lawyers as she was advised by Atty. Lim that it was not necessary for
her to consult her lawyers under the pretense that: (a) this could only jeopardize the
settlement; (b) she would only be incurring enormous expense if she consulted a
new lawyer; (c) respondent was assisting her anyway; (d) she had nothing to worry
about the documents foisted upon her to sign; (e) complainant need not come to
court afterwards to save her time; and in any event respondent already took care of
everything. She alleged that she was prevented from exhibiting fully her case by
means of fraud, deception and some other form of mendacity practiced on her by
Atty. Lim who, fraudulently or without authority, assumed to represent complainant
and connived in her defeat.
Contention of Respondent: Atty. Lim argued that Cerinas counsel had abandoned
her and it was upon her request that he made the compromise agreement. Atty. Lim
states that he first instructed Cerina to notify her lawyers but was informed that her
lawyer had abandoned her since she could not pay his attorney's fees.
ISSUE: WON Atty. Lim is guilty of malpractice and grave misconduct under the Code
of Professional Responsibility
HELD: Yes, Atty. Lim violated Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Ethics and Rule
1.01, Rule 8.02 and Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professioal Responsibility.
RATIO: Atty. Lim prevented Cerina from informing her lawyers by giving her the
reasons enumerated in the complaint. There is no showing that Atty. Lim even tried
to inform opposing counsel of the compromise agreement. Neither is there any
showing that Atty. Lim informed the trial court of the alleged abandonment of Cerina
by her counsel. Instead, even assuming that she was really abandoned by her
counsel, Atty. Lim saw an opportunity to take advantage of the situation, and the
result was the execution of the compromise agreement which is grossly and
patently disadvantageous and prejudicial to Cerina. Undoubtedly, Atty. Lim's
conduct is unbecoming a member of the legal profession.
Penalty: Atty. Lim was suspended from the practice of law for 1 year.
Recommendation of IBP CBD and BOG: not specifically mentioned in the case