A.C. No. 6128 - Hsieh vs. Quimpo

Complainant Rosemarie L. Hsieh was arrested during a buy-bust operation near the Isetann Department Store in Manila for drug trafficking and possession of marijuana.
Hsieh was detained at the Manila City Jail, and her Mitsubishi Eclipse was impounded by the authorities as part of the operation.

Due to insufficient funds for her legal defense, Hsieh secured the services of respondents, Attorneys Salvador Quimpo and Nancy Quimpo, who also represented Pilar Cabuslay.
While in detention on May 21, 1999, Hsieh authorized the respondents to use her car as security by executing a Deed of Sale in blank, with the understanding that the proceeds would be used to defray expenses related to dismissing her case and facilitating her release.

The respondents later “filled in” the blank instrument by inserting the name Atty. Nancy Quimpo as the vendee and indicating a purchase price of P600,000.00.
When Hsieh demanded the return of her car, the respondents refused on the ground that it would serve as payment for their legal services.
Hsieh filed a replevin case against the respondents, only to discover that the car had been registered in the name of one of the respondents by virtue of the notarized Deed of Sale.

After Hsieh managed to regain possession of the car, it was seized by the Traffic Management Group and she was charged with carnapping and theft.
Respondents argued that an agreement existed for a P20,000 acceptance fee and a P1,000,000 success fee, but noted that Hsieh’s financial inability led her to consent to the use of her car as security.
In September 1999, Hsieh retained another lawyer, prompting the respondents to withdraw as her counsel. They then mutually agreed on September 21, 1999 to “give effect” to the blank Deed of Sale.

The IBP Investigator focused on whether the respondents, in acquiring Hsieh’s car, breached the Canons of Professional Responsibility by acting in a manner that betrayed their fiduciary duty.
Evidence showed that the P600,000.00 charge was not properly justified and did not coincide with Hsieh’s bail order, which was only issued two months after the notarization of the deed.
The Investigator determined that by exploiting the blank nature of the Deed of Sale and Hsieh’s vulnerable condition (being in jail), the respondents committed a breach of trust.

Based on the findings of breach of trust and lack of proper accounting for fees, the IBP Investigator recommended that both respondents be strongly reprimanded.
The IBP also advised that if similar conduct were to recur, a more severe penalty should be imposed, and recommended that pertinent court decisions in related civil and criminal cases be submitted for potential further penalty adjustment by the Supreme Court.

Whether the respondents violated the Canons of Professional Responsibility by acquiring Hsieh’s car in a manner that compromised her trust.
Whether the imposition and justification of the P600,000.00 charge (alleged legal fees) were ethically and legally valid.
Whether the use and subsequent notarization of a blank Deed of Sale constituted an abuse of the fiduciary relationship between the respondents and their client.

The appropriateness of using the car, an asset of the client, as security for legal fees without the client’s informed consent.
The timing disconnect between the notarization of the Deed of Sale and the issuance of Hsieh’s bail order, which undermines the legitimacy of claiming a success fee.
The potential conflict between the respondents’ actions and the ethical obligation enshrined in Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.