5

ARNOLD PACAO v. ATTY. SINAMAR LIMOS

FACTS:

Complainant's wife Mariadel Pacao was charged with qualified theft by BHF Pawnshop (BHF). The
case was filed before the RTC of Mandaluyong City.

To buy peace, the complainant initiated negotiation with BHF, through Atty. Limos, for a possible
settlement. A meeting was then arranged between the complainant and Atty. Limos, where the latter
represented that she was duly authorized by BHF.

Atty. Limos relayed that BHF is demanding the sum of P530,000.00 to be paid in full or by
installments. Further negotiation led to an agreement whereby the complainant would pay an initial
amount of P200,000.00 to be entrusted to Atty. Limos, who will then deliver to the complainant a
signed affidavit of desistance, a compromise agreement, and a joint motion to approve compromise
agreement for filing with the court.

On October 2009, the complainant gave the initial amount of P200,000.00 to Atty. Limos, who in turn,
signed an Acknowledgment Receipt recognizing her undertakings as counsel of BHF. However, Atty.
Limos failed to meet the terms of their agreement.

Thereafter, in June 2010, the complainant met BHF's representative, Camille Bonifacio, who informed
him that Atty. Limos was no longer BHF's counsel and was not authorized to negotiate any settlement
nor receive any money in behalf of BHF.

This prompted the complainant to send a demand letter to Atty. Limos to return the P200,000.00
initial settlement payment, but the latter failed and refused to do so.

The complainant then filed a disbarment case against Atty. Limos before the IIBP-CBD. The IBP-CBD
required Atty. Limos to file an answer but she did not file any responsive pleading.

In 2014, the Investigating Commissioner found enough evidence on record to prove that Atty. Limos
committed fraud and practiced deceit on the complainant to the latter's prejudice by concealing or
omitting to disclose the material fact that she no longer had the authority to negotiate and conclude a
settlement for and on behalf of BHF, nor was authorized to receive the P200,000.00 from the
complainant.

In 2016, the IBP transmitted the notice of the resolution and the case records to the Court for final
action pursuant to Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court.

ISSUE:

W/N the instant disbarment complaint constitutes a sufficient basis to disbar Atty. Limos from the
practice of law?
RULING:

The Court notes that this is not the first time that Atty. Limos is facing an administrative case, for she
had already been twice suspended from the practice of law, by this Court, for three months each in
Villaflores v. Atty. Limos and Wilkie v. Atty. Limos.

Her blunder is compounded by the fact that she did not turn over the money to BHF, nor did she
return the same to the complainant, despite due demand. Furthermore, she even tried to get the next
installment knowing fully well that she was not authorized to enter into settlement negotiations with
the complainant as her engagement as counsel of BHF had already ceased.

It is not too farfetched for this Court to conclude that from the very beginning, Atty. Limos had
planned to employ deceit on the complainant to get hold of a sum of money. Such a conduct is
unbecoming and does not speak well of a member of the Bar.

The present case comes clearly under the grounds given in Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules
of Court. The Court, however, does not hesitate to impose the penalty of disbarment when the guilty
party has become a repeat offender. Considering the serious nature of the instant offense and in light
of Atty. Limos' prior misconduct which grossly degrades the legal profession, the imposition of the
ultimate penalty of disbarment is warranted.
14

ROMULO CATIMBUHAN V. NICANOR CRUZ

FACTS:

Cantimbuhan filed separate criminal complaint against Patrolmen Danilo Sari Antonio and
Rodolfo Diaz for less serious physical injuries in the then Municipal Court of Parañaque.
Metro Manila Petitioners Nelson B. Malaria and Robert V. Lucila, in 1979, were senior law
students of the U.P. assistance to the needy clients in the Office of the Legal Aid.

Thus, petitioners Malana and Lucila filed their separate appearances, as friends of
complainant-petitioner Cantimbuhan. Herein respondent Fiscal Quilatan opposed the
appearances of said petitioners, and respondent judge sustained the respondent fiscal and
disallowed the appearances of petitioners Malana and Lucila as private prosecutors in said
criminal cases.

ISSUE:

W/N the appearances of petitioners Malana and Lucila as private prosecutors is proper.

RULING:

Section 34, Rule 138 of the Rule of Court, clearly provides that in the municipal court a party may
conduct his litigation in person with the aid of an agent appointed by him for the purpose.
Further, if a non-lawyer can apper as defense counsel or as friend of the accused in a case before
the municipal trial court, with more reason should he be allowed to appear as private prosecutor
under the supervision and control of the trial fiscal
16

PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF FREE LABOR UNIONS (PAFLU) V.

BINALBAGAN ISABELA SUGAR COMPANY

FACTS:

A decision of the Case No. 72-ULP-Iloilo entitled "PAFLU et al vs. Binalbagan Isabela Sugar Co., et
al." was rendered on March 29, 1961. Reinstatement with back wages was ordered to the
complainants Entila and Tenazas. The complainants' counsel was Cipriano Cid & Associates
through Atty. Atanacio Pacis. The decision became final. On October 18, 1963, the Cipriano Cid
& Associates, counsel of record filed a notice of attorney's lien equivalent to 30% of the total
backwages. On November 1963, Atty. Pacis also filed a similar notice for a reasonable
amount. The complainants then subsequently filed their manifestation indicating their
non-objection to the award of an attorney's fees for 25% of their backwages. Thereafter,
Quentin Muning filed a Petition for the Award of Services Rendered" equivalent to 20% of
the backwages, but it was opposed by Cipriano Cid on the ground that he is not a lawyer.

It was found out that the charge was filed by Cipriano Cid & Associates through Atty. Pacis. All
hearings were held in Bacolod City and appearances made in behalf of the complainants
were at first by Atty. Pacis and subsequently by respondent Muning.

On May 12, 1964 the Court of Industrial Relations awarded a total of 25% of the backwages as
compensation for the professional services rendered in the case: 10% for the Attys. Cipriano
Cid, 10% for the respondent, and 5% for Atty. Pacis, Muning's award who is not a lawyer held
in question.

ISSUE:

WON a non-lawyer may recover Atty's fees for legal services rendered.

RULING:

No. A non-lawyer may not recover Atty's fees for legal services rendered.

According to Amalgamated Laborer's Ass. Vs. CIR, an agreement providing for the division of
atty's fees, whereby a non-lawyer union president is allowed to share in said fees with
lawyers, is condemned by Canon 34 of Legal Ethics and is immoral and cannot be justified.
Moreover, according to Section 5 b of RA 875, representation of legal counsel shall not be
required in the proceedings before the Court of Hearing Examiners. Thus, it shall be the duty
and obligation of the court or Hearing Officer to examine and cross examine witnesses on
behalf of the parties and to assist in the orderly presentation of evidence. Representation
should be exclusively entrusted to duly qualified members of the bar. The permission for a
non-lawyer to represent or appear in the said court does not entitle him for compensation.
The ethics or the legal profession should not be violated. Therefore, no one is entitled to
recover compensation for services as an attorney at law unless he has been duly admitted
to practice and is an attorney in good standing.
23

Eustaquio v. Navales

FACTS:

ISSUE:

RULING: