Case Digest (A.C. No. 6281)
Facts:
Valentin C. Miranda v. Atty. Macario D. Carpio, A.C. No. 6281, September 26, 2011, Supreme Court Third Division, Peralta, J., writing for the Court.Complainant Valentin C. Miranda owned a 1,890-square-meter parcel in Las Piñas and filed LRC Case No. M-226 in 1994 for registration of the property before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 275. During the proceedings Miranda engaged Atty. Macario D. Carpio to replace his original counsel. Miranda and Carpio agreed that Miranda would pay PhP20,000 as acceptance fee and PhP2,000 as appearance fee; receipts signed by Carpio evidence payment of those amounts.
As the case neared conclusion, respondent allegedly demanded an additional PhP10,000 for a memorandum and 20% of the property (378 sq. m.) as further professional fees. Miranda refused because no such additional fees had been agreed upon and because he co-owned the property with siblings. The trial court entered a decision registering the property on January 12, 1998, and the LRA transmitted the decree and title; the owner’s duplicate of the OCT was released to Carpio on March 29, 2000, without Miranda’s knowledge.
Miranda discovered the release on April 3, 2000, and repeatedly demanded return of the owner’s duplicate. Carpio allegedly insisted Miranda pay the demanded fees and threatened cancellation of the OCT. On April 6, 2000, Carpio registered an adverse claim on the title asserting entitlement to 20% of the property or its market value. Miranda filed a complaint for disciplinary action with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP).
The IBP-Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) recommended a six-month suspension for unjustly withholding the title; the IBP Board of Governors adopted the recommendation in Resolution No. XVII-2005-173 (Dec. 17, 2005). Carpio filed a motion for reconsideration and, pending that, a petition for review with the Court. The Court remanded the case to the IBP for proper disposition in light of Noriel J. Ramientas v. Atty. Jocelyn P. Reyala. On remand the IBP Board affirmed the...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did respondent unlawfully withhold complainant’s owner’s duplicate of the OCT and thereby violate the Code of Professional Responsibility?
- Was respondent entitled to retain the owner’s duplicate under an attorney’s retaining lien?
- Could respondent invoke the doctrine of quantum meruit to justify his demand for 20% of the property or its market value?
- What disciplinary sanction, if any, is a...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)