PATERNO R. CANLAS, petitioner,vs.

HON. COURT OF APPEALS, and FRANCISCO HERRERA,respondents.

G.R. No. L-77691
August 8, 1988

SARMIENTO,J .:
Facts:
The private respondent own several parcels of land located in Quezon City for which he is the
registered owner. He secured loans from L and R corporations and executed deeds of mortgage over the
parcels of land for the security of the same. Upon the maturity of said loans, the firm initiated an
extrajudicial foreclosure of the properties in question after private respondent failed to pay until
maturity. The private respondent filed a complaint for injunction over the said foreclosure and for
redemption of the parcels of land. Two years after the filing of the petition, private respondent and L
and R corporation entered into a compromise agreement that renders the former to be insured another
year for the said properties. Included in the stipulations were the attorneys fees amounting to Php
100,000.00. The private respondent however, remained to be in turmoil when it came to finances and
was apparently unable to pay and secure the attorneys fees, more so the redemption liability. Relief
was discussed by petitioner and private respondent executed a document to redeem the parcels of land
and to register the same to his name.
Allegations were made by the private respondent claiming the parcels of land to his name but without
prior notice, the properties were already registered under the petitioners name. The private
respondent calls for a review and for the court to act on the said adverse claim by petitioner on said
certificates for the properties consolidated by the redemption price he paid for said properties. The
private respondent filed a suit for the annulment of judgment in the Court of appeals which ruled over
the same.

Issue: whether the petitioner is on solid ground on the reacquisition over the said properties.
Ruling:
By Atty. Canlas' own account, "due to lack of paying capacity of respondent Herrera, no financing entity
was willing to extend him any loan with which to pay the redemption price of his mortgaged properties
and petitioner's P100,000.00 attorney's fees awarded in the Compromise Judgment," a development
that should have tempered his demand for his fees. For obvious reasons, he placed his interests over
and above those of his client, in opposition to his oath to "conduct himself as a lawyer ... with all good
fidelity ... to [his] clients." The Court finds the occasion fit to stress that lawyering is not a
moneymaking venture and lawyers are not merchants, a fundamental standard that has, as a matter of
judicial notice, eluded not a few law advocates. The petitioner's efforts partaking of a shakedown" of
his own client are not becoming of a lawyer and certainly, do not speak well of his fealty to his oath to
"delay no man for money."
We are not, however, condoning the private respondent's own shortcomings. In condemning Atty. Canlas
monetarily, we cannot overlook the fact that the private respondent has not settled his liability for

payment of the properties. To hold Atty. Canlas alone liable for damages is to enrich said respondent at
the expense of his lawyer. The parties must then set off their obligations against the other.