Case Summary (A.C. No. 9091)
Background Agreement and Representation
On September 4, 2002, the complainants entered into an agreement with Fevidal, which stated that they would receive P35,000,000 for the sale of their lands. They executed a Special Power of Attorney to authorize Fevidal to act on their behalf in matters related to the parcels of land. However, Fevidal subsequently failed to provide updates on the subdivision project and did not account for the titles of the subdivided lands. Moreover, he sold several parcels to third parties without remitting the proceeds to the complainants, prompting the eventual revocation of the Special Power of Attorney on August 23, 2005.
Legal Actions and Withdrawal of Services
After multiple failed attempts to settle with Fevidal, the complainants hired respondent Atty. BaAez to assist in drafting a formal settlement. Instead of facilitating a settlement, respondent advised the complainants to file legal actions against Fevidal. As they prepared to initiate the lawsuit, an Affidavit of Adverse Claim was prepared and notarized, intending to formalize their claim on the properties. However, this Adverse Claim was subsequently held in abeyance due to Fevidal’s influence over the complainants, leading to further complications.
Termination of Services and Complaints Filed
Dissatisfied with the progress and outcome of their legal actions, the complainants terminated respondent's services on June 8, 2007, and subsequently withdrew their complaint against Fevidal on June 9, 2007, eventually reaching an informal settlement with him on July 5, 2007. In response to these developments, respondent filed a Manifestation and Opposition, asserting that the withdrawal of the complaint was fraudulent and intended to deprive him of his fees. This situation escalated into a formal complaint against him filed with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) on November 14, 2007.
Allegations Against the Respondent
In their complaint, the complainants alleged that respondent had violated several Canons of the Code of Professional Responsibility, such as engaging in unlawful conduct and failing to keep clients informed. They argued that respondent’s actions contributed to their inability to realize the benefits from their properties. The IBP found sufficient grounds to suspend respondent for one year due to what they categorized as a champertous agreement, in which he paid for litigation expenses in return for a portion of the recoveries.
Court’s Findings
Upon reviewing the case, the Supreme Court found that the respondent did not violate the professional conduct canons cited by the complainants. The court noted that recommending legal action over a low settlement amount was within the bounds of ethical legal practice. The complainants’ claims of not being informed of their case’s status were found to be misplaced, as they were responsible for communicating their decisions regarding any settlement or legal action. Additionally, the court highlighted the importance of attorneys maintaining the integrity of their professional duties.
Respondent's Ethical Violations
However, while the court absolved respondent from the major allegations, it did recognize that he had engaged in co
...continue readingCase Syllabus (A.C. No. 9091)
Case Background
- The complainants are owners of three parcels of land located in Dinalupihan, Bataan.
- On September 4, 2002, they entered into an agreement with Gerry R. Fevidal, a subdivision developer, for the sale of their lots, with an anticipated payment of P35,000,000.
- A Special Power of Attorney was executed to authorize Fevidal to manage transactions related to the parcels on their behalf.
- Fevidal failed to provide updates on the subdivision status and did not account for the titles of the subdivided land.
- The complainants discovered that Fevidal had sold multiple parcels to third parties without remitting proceeds to them and they were excluded from the subdivision's ceremonial opening.
Revocation of Authority
- Due to Fevidal's inaction and mismanagement, the complainants revoked the Special Power of Attorney on August 23, 2005.
- The complainants attempted to settle with Fevidal for P10,000,000, but he did not fulfill this payment.
Engagement of Legal Services
- The complainants hired the services of the respondent, Atty. Juan B. Baez, Jr., to assist in drafting a settlement agreement.
- Rather than drafting a written agreement, the respondent advised the complainants to file actions against Fevidal to recover their properties.
- A contract for legal services was signed, stipulating that the complainants would not pay acceptance or appearance fees; instead, they would share docket fees and pay the respondent 50% of any recovery from their properties.
Legal Actions Taken
- The respondent prepared and notarized an Affidavit of Adverse Claim to annotate the complainants' claim to at least 195 titles held by Fevidal.
- A representative, Luzviminda Andrade, wa