89 LEMOINE v BALON

FACTS:
 Lemoine is a French national who filed an insurance claim with Metropolitan Insurance.
 His friend Jesus Garcia arranged for the engagement of Balon’s services as his counsel
 Balon advised Lemoine that he was charging 25% of the actual amount to being recovered
payable upon successful recovery. An advance payment of P50,000 to be deducted from
whatever amount would be successfully collected. P1,000 as appearance and conference fee for
each and every court hearing and legal expenses and other miscellaneous will be charged to
Lemoine’s account which would be reimbursed upon presentment of account. Lemoine never
gave his consent as to the fee.
 Lemoine signed an undated Special Power of Attorney authorizing Balon to bring any action
against Metropolitan Insurance for the satisfaction of Lemoine’s claim as well as to negotiate,
sign, compromise, encash and receive payments
 Metropolitan Insurance offered to settle Lemoine’s claim and Balon confirmed his acceptance of
the offer
 December 1998, Metropolitan Insurance issued a China Bank check payable to Lemoine in the
amount of P525,000 which was received by Balon
 When Lemoine asked Balon as to the status of the case, Balon answered that Metropolitan
Insurance was offering P350,000 for settlement which Lemoine suggested that Balon accept to
avoid litigation
 December 1999, Lemoine visited the office of Metropolitan Insurance to ask on the status of the
case and it answered that the case was long settled via a check given to Balon.
 Balon acknowledge that he is in possession of the check and that he is keeping the check as
attorney’s lien pending Lemoine’s payment of his attorney’s fee equivalent to 50% of the entire
amount collected. He also threatened Lemoine that he will not hesitate to make proper
representation with the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation, DOLE and BIR if Lemoine will
make any trouble to Balon and that he has good network with the mentioned agencies.
 Balon later claimed that he gave P233,000 to Garcia on the representation of Lemoine. No
written memorandum of the turn-over was made because Garcia was a co-Rotarian and co-
attorney of Balon
 Balon was in possession of the said check for 5 years
ISSUE:
W/N Balon violated the Code of Professional Responsibility
HELD:
YES! And he was ordered disbarred by the SC
The lawyer’s continuing exercise of his retaining lien presupposes that the client agrees with the
amount of attorney’s fees to e charged. In case of disagreement, however, the lawyer must not
arbitrarily apply the funds in his possession to the payment of his fees. He can file the necessary action
with the proper court to fix the fees
Before receiving the check, he proposes a 25% attorney’s fees, after receiving the check, he was
already asking for 50%.
 under the Code of Professional Responsibility, a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful acts , must
observe fairness in all his dealings with his client and must hold in trust all moneys and properties of his
client
a lawyer who practices deceit in his dealings with his client not only violates his duty of fidelity loyalty
and devotion to the client’s cause but also degrades himself and besmirches the name of an honorable
profession.