Rayos v.

Hernandez
G.R. No. 169079; February 12, 2007
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:

Facts: Atty. Ponciano Hernandez was the lawyer of Francisco Rayos in a case wherein
the latter sued the government when NAPOCOR, recklessly opened three floodgates
during the Pading Typhoon, which resulted to the death of 10 of his family members. He
won the cases and damages were awarded to him. However, the check was turned over to
Atty, Hernandez as he was his counsel. When Rayos, asked it from him, Hernandez
refused to give the same. On 24 January 1994 , petitioner filed with the RTC a motion 8
to direct respondent to deliver to him the check issued by NAPOCOR, corresponding to
the damages awarded by the Court of Appeals. Petitioner sought to recover the check in
the amount of P1,060,800.00 from respondent, claiming that respondent had no authority
to receive the same as he was already dismissed by petitioner as his counsel on 21
November 1993. 9 Respondent, on the other hand, justifies his retention as a means to
ensure payment of his attorneys fees. A writ of execution was issued later on, however,
despite this, Hernandez still refused. However, on 4 July 1994, respondent deposited the
amount of P502,838.79 with Farmers Savings and Loan Bank, Inc., Norzagaray, Bulacan,
in the name of petitioner which was eventually received by the latter.

Thus, petitioner initiated this complaint for disbarment for the failure of respondent to
return the rest of the award in the amount of P557,961.21. According to the respondent,
he had been the petitioners lawyer for 15 years and that he was entitled to such money
because they had a verbal contract wherein Rayos agreed to give him 60 percent of the
award of damages.

Issue: Is the respondent justified in retaining the amount awarded to petitioner in Civil
Case No. SM-951 to assure payment of his attorneys fees?

Ruling: No. When Hernandez refused to give the check to Rayos, he already breached
the trust reposed on him. He only gave partial payment when the court already issued a
writ of execution. It is true that lawyers have a right of lien under Rule 16.03, but the fact
alone that a lawyer has a lien for fees on moneys in his hands collected for his client, as
above-stated, does not relieve him of his duty to promptly account for the moneys
received; his failure to do so constitutes professional misconduct. Furthermore, the fee
that he imposed was too unconscionable. He should have greatly considered Rule 20.1 in
determining the amount of his fees. 35% is enough. WHEREFORE the Court Resolves
that:

1. Respondent is guilty of violation of the attorneys oath and of serious professional

misconduct and shall be SUSPENDED from the practice of law for six (6) months and
WARNED that repetition of the same or similar offense will be dealt with more severely;
Tanhueco vs. De Dumo
A.M. No. 1437 April 25, 1989
PER CURIAM:

Facts: On 24 February 1975, complainant Hilaria Tanhueco filed before the Court a
Petition for Disbarment (docketed as Administrative Case No. 1437) against respondent
Justiniano G. de Dumo for having violated the Canons of Professional Ethics by his (a)
refusal to remit to her money collected by him from debtors of the complainant; and (b)
refusal to return documents entrusted to him as counsel of complainant in certain
collection cases. Respondent Atty. Justiniano G. de Dumo testified that complainant
indeed secured his legal services to collect from her debtors, with the agreement that he
gets 50% of what he may be able to collect. He thus filed collection cases against Tipace
Maosca Morena, Jr., and others, and was able to obtain favorable judgment in the cases
against Maosca, Tipace, and Leonila Mendoza. The initial payments made by these
judgment-debtors were all given to complainant. With respect to Maosca respondent
obtained a judgment for P19,000.00 although the debt was only P12,000.00 (pp. 3-9, tsn,
April 18, 1988).

Respondent also declared that complainant, who was then already old and sickly, was
influenced by her debtors, who were also her friends into distrusting him. Ultimately,
because complainant filed a complaint against him with Malacaang which referred the
matter to Camp Crame, he terminated his relationship with complainant and demanded
his attorney's fees equivalent to 50% of what he had collected. Complainant refused to
pay him, hence, he did not also turn over to her the P12,000.00 initial payment of
Maosca which he considered, or applied, as part payment of his attorney's fee (pp. 9-19,
tsn., Id.). Respondent estimated his attorney's fee due from complainant in the amount of
P17,000.00 (p. 20, tsn, Id.)

Respondent denied having borrowed the amounts of P2,000.00, P1,300.00, P3,000.00 and
P1,000.00, pointing out that complainant did not even have money to pay him so that he
handled the cases for her on contingent basis (p. 17, tsn, Id.) He also denied having
received documentary evidence from complainant.

Issue: Is the respondent liable?

Ruling: Yes. The Court held that the relationship of an attorney and a client is always
reposed with trust and the moment respondent failed to deliver the documents, he
breached this particular trust. WHEREFORE:

1. respondent is guilty of violation of the attorneys' oath and of serious professional

misconduct and shall be SUSPENDED from the practice law for six (6) months and
WARNED that repetition of the same or similar offense will be more severely dealt with;

2. the attorney's fees that respondent is entitled to in respect of the collection cases here
involved shall be an amount equivalent to fifteen percent (15%) of the total amount
collected by respondent from the debtors in those cases;
3. respondent shall return forthwith to the estate of complainant Hilaria Tanhueco the
P12,000.00 respondent received on behalf of his client less attorney's fees due to him in
respect of that amount (P l2,000.00 less fifteen percent [15%] thereof) or a net amount of
P10,200.00; and

4. respondent shall return to the estate of complainant Hilaria Tanhueco any documents
and papers received by him from the deceased complainant in connection with the
collection cases for which he was retained. If he has in fact made any other collections
from deceased complainant's debtors, he shall promptly account therefor to complainant's
estate and shall be entitled to receive in respect thereof the fifteen percent (15%)
attorney's fees provided for herein.