Retuya v.

Gorduiz

Facts:
Retuya filed for a claim of workmen’s compensation against Eastern Shipping Lines,
the employer of her husband who died in 1968. In a decision by the Workmen’s
Compensation Unit at Tacloban City, Ana was awarded a sum for compensation
benefits, medical and hospitalization expenses, burial expenses, and attorney’s fees
of Atty. Inego Gorduiz (P300). In the appeal, a compromise claim was proposed,
and subsequently accepted by Ana. The employer paid a reduced award.

Ana sent the receipt and release, wherein she also explained that Gorduiz did not
sign the joint motion to dismiss the claim because he wanted 20% of the award as
his attorney’s fees. She was willing to give him 10% only. After cashing the check, she
was not able to contact Gorduiz and pay his fee. Unexpectedly, she was served with
a warrant of arrest. To avoid detention, she posted bail.

It turned out that Atty. Gorduiz executed an affidavit stating that Ana had
misappropriated his attorney’s fees amounting to P300, that he had demanded
payment but she had refused to make payment. So she went to Cebu. On the basis
of such affidavit, the acting chief of police filed against Ana a complaint for estafa.

She filed a motion to quash where she explained that she did not accede to his
demand. She stated that the estafa case was filed merely to harass her. The motion
to quash was denied and Judge Equipilag required Ana to produce a copy of the
decision awarding her workmen’s compensation.

The case of estafa was not tried. Instead, Atty. Diola, lawyer of Ana, offered Gorduiz
a sum of P500 as settlement of the case. The offer was accepted. The dismissal was
eventually released. Despite the dismissal, Ana felt aggrieved and asked for the
disbarment or suspension of Atty. Gorduiz.

Held/Ratio:
In the case of Gorduiz, the Solicitor General, disagreeing with the recommendation
of the provincial fiscal of Southern Leyte, filed in this court a case against Gorduiz a
complaint where he prayed that Gorduiz be suspended for six months because in
filing the estafa case, he had promoted a groundless suit. Ana testified that she was
willing to pay Gorduiz an amount of P650 but he demanded a bigger amount. He
then filed an estafa case against her, which was later dismissed when Ana paid
Gorduiz a sum of P500.

In his testimony, Gorduiz denied that he demanded attorney’s fees higher than
P300. He explained that he filed the estafa case because after Ana received the
payment of the award, she did not turn it over desmise promises and demands.
He further declared that it was only filed to evade payment of attorney’s fees. He
also filed the case because he thought that Ana had absconded when she stayed in
Cebu for a long time. He also said that he used his own money in looking for
evidence in the workmen’s compensation case. The Court finds justification for
suspending the respondent. The respondent acted precipitately in filing a criminal
action against his client for the supposed misappropriation. It is not clear that the
client had swindled him, and there is basis that contrary to his lawyer’s oath, he
had filed a suit against her and had harassed and embarrassed her.

Rule 20.02: A lawyer shall avoid controversies with clients concerning his
compensation and shall resort only to judicial action only to prevent imposition,
fraud, or injustice.

Canon 20: A lawyer shall charge only fair and reasonable fees.