Cerina B. Likong vs. Atty. Alexander H. Lim, A.C. No.

3149, August 17, 1994 FACTS:

Complainant Cerina B. Likong executed a deed of assignment assigning to Geesnell
L. Yap pension checks which she regularly receives from the US government as a
widow of a US pensioner. The deed of assignment states that the same shall be
irrevocable until her loan is fully paid. Cerina likewise executed a special power of
attorney authorizing Yap to get her pension checks from the post office. About three
months after the execution of the SPA, Cerina informed the post office that she was
revoking the SPA. Yap filed a complaint for injunction against Cerina. Respondent
Alexander H. Lim appeared as counsel for Yap while Attys. Roland B. Inting and Erico
B. Aumentado appeared for Cerina. Cerina and Yap filed a joint motion, which does
not bear the signatures of Cerina's counsel, to allow the Yap to withdraw the
pension checks. They likewise entered into a compromise agreement without the
participation of Cerina's counsel. In the compromise agreement, it was stated that
complainant Cerina admitted an obligation to Yap and that they agreed that the
amount would be paid in monthly installments. Cerina filed a complaint for
disbarment, alleging that in all the motions, she was prevented from seeking
assistance, advise and signature of any of her two lawyers as she was advised by
Atty. Lim that it was not necessary for her to consult her lawyers under the pretense
that: (a) this could only jeopardize the settlement; (b) she would only be incurring
enormous expense if she consulted a new lawyer; (c) respondent was assisting her
anyway; (d) she had nothing to worry about the documents Foisted upon her to
sign; (e) complainant need not come to court afterwards to save her time; and in
any event respondent already took care of everything. She alleged that she was
prevented from exhibiting fully her case by means of fraud, deception and some
other form of mendacity practiced on her by Atty. Lim who, fraudulently or without
authority, assumed to represent complainant and connived in her defeat. Atty. Lim
argued that Cerinas counsel had abandoned her and it was upon her request that
he made the compromise agreement. Atty. Lim states that he first instructed Cerina
to notify her lawyers but was informed that her lawyer had abandoned her since she
could not pay his attorney's fees. The compromise agreement prepared by
respondent increased Cerinas debt to Yap and the terms contained therein are
grossly prejudicial to Cerina. ISSUE/S: WON Atty. Lim is guilty of misconduct under
the Code of Professional Responsibility. HELD: Yes. Atty. Lim was suspended from the
practice of law for 1 year for violating Rule 8.02 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, constituting malpractice and grave misconduct. RATIO: Atty. Lim
prevented Cerina from informing her lawyers by giving her the reasons enumerated
in the complaint. There is no showing that Atty.
Lim even tried to inform opposing counsel of the compromise agreement. Neither is
there any showing that Atty. Lim informed the trial court of the alleged
abandonment of Cerina by her counsel.Instead, even assuming that she was really
abandoned by her counsel, Atty. Lim saw an opportunity to take advantage of the
situation, and the result was the execution of the compromise agreement which is
grossly and patently disadvantageous and prejudicial to Cerina. Undoubtedly, Atty.
Lim's conduct is unbecoming a member of the legal profession. The Code of
Professional Responsibility states: Rule 8.02 A lawyer shall not, directly or
indirectly, encroach upon the professional employment of another lawyer; however,

it is the right of any lawyer, without fear or favor, to give proper advice and
assistance to those seeking relief against unfaithful or neglectful counsel.