A.C. No. 4215.

May 21, 2001

FELICISIMO M. MONTANO, complainant, vs. INTEGRATED BAR of the PILIPPINES AND Atty. !"AN S.
DEALCA, respondents.
#AP"NAN, J.$
In a verified complaint filed before this Court on March 9, 1994, complainant Felicisimo M. Montano charged Atty. uan
!ealca "ith misconduct and prays that he be #sternly dealt "it administratively.$ %he complaint
&1'
is summari(ed as follo"s)
1. *n +ovember 14, 199,, the complainant hired the services of Atty. uan -. !ealca as his counsel in collaboration "ith
Atty. .onando /. 0erona in a case pending before the Court of Appeals doc1eted as CA20... C3 +o. 45465 "herein the
complainant "as the plaintiff2appellant.
,. %he parties agreed upon attorney7s fees in the amount of 819,:::.::, fifty percent ;9:<= of "hich "as payable upon
acceptance of the case and the remaining balance upon the termination of the case. Accordingly, complainant paid respondent the
amount of 85,9::.:: representing 9:< of the attorney7s fee.
4. %hereafter, even before the respondent counsel had prepared the appellant7s brief and contrary to their agreement
that the remaining balance be payable after the termination of the case, Atty. !ealca demanded an additional payment from
complainant. Complainant obliged by paying the amount of 84,:::.::.
4. 8rior to the filing of the appellant7s brief, respondent counsel again demand payment of the remaining balance of
4,9::.::. >hen complainant "as unable to do so, respondent la"yer "ithdre" his appearance as complainant7s counsel "ithout
his prior 1no"ledge and?or conformity. .eturning the case folder to the complainant, respondent counsel attached a +ote dated
February ,@, 1994,
&,'
stating)
,@ February 1994
8epe and !el Montano,
For brea1ing your promise, since you do not "ant to fulfill your end of the bargain, here7s your re"ard)
Aenceforth, you la"yer for yourselves. Aere are your papers.
ohnny
Complainant claimed that such conduct by respondent counsel eBceeded the ethical standards of the la" profession and
prays that the latter be sternly dealt "ith administratively. Complainant later on filed motions praying for the imposition of the
maBimum penalty of disbarment.
After respondent counsel filed his comment on the complaint, the Court in the .esolution of August 1, 1994, referred the
case to the Integrated Car of the 8hilippines ;IC8= for investigation, report and recommendation.
%he Investigating Commissioner found respondent counsel guilty of unprofessional conduct and recommended that he be
#severely reprimanded.$ Ao"ever, in a .esolution
&4'
by the IC8 Coard of 0overnors on uly ,6, 1995, it "as resolved that the
penalty recommended by the Investigating Commissioner meted to respondent by amended to #three ;4= months suspension from
the practice of la" for having been found guilty of misconduct, "hich eroded the public confidence regarding his duty as a
la"yer.$
.espondent counsel sought reconsideration of the aforementioned resolution of the IC8, alleging that the latter
misapprehended the facts and that, in any case, he did not deserve the penalty imposed. %he true facts, according to him, are the
follo"ing)
1. Complainant is being represented by Atty. .onando /. 0erona in his case on appealD
,. !ue to the ailment of Atty. 0erona7s daughter, he could not prepare and submit complainant7s appellant7s brief on
timeD
4. Complainant "ent to the respondent to do Eust that, i.e., prepare and submit his appellant7s brief on time at the
agreed fee of 819,:::.::, 9:< do"n and 9:< upon its completionD
4. >or1ing overtime, respondent "as able to finish the appellant7s brief ahead of its deadline, so he advised the
complainant about its completion "ith the reFuest that the remaining balance of 85,9::.:: be paid. Complainant
paid 84,:::.:: only, promising to pay the 84,9::.:: #tomorro"$ or on #later particular date.$ 8lease ta1e note
that, at this Euncture, there "as already a breach of the agreement on complainant7s part.
9. >hen that #tomorro"$ or on a #later particular date$ came, respondent, thru a messenger, reFuested the
complainant to pay the 84,9::.:: as promised but "ord "as sent that he "ill again pay #tomorro"$ or on #later
date.$ %his promise2non2payment cycle "ent on repeatedly until the last day of the filing of the brief. 8lease
ta1e note again that it "as not the respondent but the complainant "ho sets the date "hen he "ill pay, yet fails to
pay as promisedD
6. Gven "ithout being paid completely, respondent, of his o"n free "ill and accord, filed complainant7s brief on timeD
5. After the brief "as filed, respondent tried to collect from the complainant the remaining balance of 84,9::.::, but
the latter made himself scarce. As the records "ould sho", such 84,9::.:: remains unpaid until no"D
@. -ensing that something "as amiss, respondent sent the February ,@, 1994 note and case folder to the complainant,
hoping that the latter "ould see personally the former about it to settle the matter bet"een themD
9. Ao"ever, instead of seeing the respondent, complainant filed this caseD
1:. .espondent "as constrained to file his "ithdra"al "ith the Court of Appeals because of this case to avoid further
misunderstanding since he "as the one "ho signed the appellant7s brief although Atty. 0erona "as his counsel of
record. -uch "ithdra"al "as accordingly granted by the appellate courtD
BBB BBB BBB.
&4'
.espondent counsel further averred that complainant7s refusal to pay the agreed la"yer7s fees, measly as it "as, "as
deliberate and in bad faithD hence, his "ithdra"al as counsel "as #Eust, ethical and proper.$ .espondent counsel concluded that
not only "as the penalty of suspension harsh for his act of merely trying to collect payment for his services rendered, but it
indirectly "ould punish his family since he "as the sole bread"inner "ith children in school and his "ife terminally ill "ith
cancer.
In its .esolution +o. HIII29521,9 dated *ctober ,9, 1995, the IC8 denied Atty. !ealca7s motion for reconsideration, to "it)
BBB
.G-*/3G! %* !G+I Atty. !ealca7s Motion For .econsideration of the Coard7s !ecision in the above2entitled case there being
no substantive reason to reverse the finding therein. Moreover, the motion is improperly laid the remedy of the respondent is to
file the appropriate pleading "ith the -upreme Court "ithin fifteen ;19= days from receipt of notice of said !ecision pursuant to
-ec. 1, &c' of .ule 1492C.
&9'
*n !ecember 1:, 1995, this Court noted the follo"ing pleadings filed in the present complaint,
;a= notice and a copy of .esolution +o. HII2952194 dated uly ,6, 1995 of the Integrated Car of the 8hilippines
amending the recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner of reprimand to three ;4= months suspension of
respondent from the practice of la" for having been found guilty of misconduct "hich eroded the public
confidence regarding his duty as a la"yerD
;b= complainant7s motion for praying for the imposition of the maBimum penalty of disbarmentD
;c= motion dated September 15, 1997 of respondent for reconsideration of the aforesaid resolution of July 26, 1997D
;d= comment?opposition of respondent praying that the motion for the imposition of the maBimum penalty be deniedD
;e= comment of complainant praying that the penalty of three ;4= months suspension for the practice of la" as
recommended by the Integrated Car of the 8hilippines pursuant to .esolution +o. HII2952194 be raised to a
heavier penaltyD
;f= comment?manifestation?opposition of complainant praying that the respondent be disbarredD and
;g= reEoinder of respondent praying that this case be dismissed for being baseless.
&6'
and referred the same to the IC8 for evaluation and report.
In compliance there"ith, on March ,@, 199@, the IC8 issued .esolution +o. HIII29@24, referring the above2entitled case to
Commissioner 3ibar for evaluation, report and recommendation #in vie" of the Motion for .econsideration granted by the
-upreme Court.$
%he Investigating Commissioner, after referring the case, recommended that his original recommendation of the imposition
of the penalty of reprimand be maintained, noting that respondent counsel had served the IC8 "ell as 8resident of the -orsogon
Chapter.
&5'
Accordingly, on February ,4, 1999, the IC8 Coard of 0overnors, issued the follo"ing resolution)
RESOL"TION NO. %III&''&4(
BBB
.G-*/3G! to A!*8% and A88.*3G, as it is hereby A!*8%G! and A88.*3G!, the .eport and .ecommendation of the
Investigating Commissioner in the above2entitled case, herein made part of this .esolution?!ecision as AnneB #A$D and, finding
the recommendation fully supported by the evidence on record and the applicable la"s and rules, the Motion for
.econsideration )e *+a,te- and that the penalty ofREPRIMAND earlier recommended by the Investigating Commissioner be
imposed on Atty. uan -. !ealca.
&@'
Complainant as1ed the IC8 to reconsider the foregoing resolution but the motion "as denied.
&9'
*n April 1:, ,:::, complainant filed "ith this Court a petition for revie" on certiorari in connection "ith Administrative
Case +o. 4,19 against the IC8 and respondent counsel averring that the IC8 Coard of 0overnors committed grave abuse of
discretion "hen it overturned its earlier resolution and granted respondent counsel7s motion for reconsideration on February ,4,
1999. Ae claimed that the earlier resolution denying the motion for reconsideration issued on *ctober ,9, 1995 had already
become final and eBecutoryD hence, any further action or motion subseFuent to such final and eBecutory Eudgment shall be null
and void.
>hen the Court issued the resolution of !ecember 1:, 1995 treating the several pleadings filed in the present complaint, it
should be noted that the IC8 resolution denying respondent7s motion for reconsideration ;.esolution +o. HIII29521,9= dated
*ctober ,9, 1995, for some reason, had not yet reached this Court. As of that date, the only IC8 resolution attached to the
records of the case "as .esolution +o. HII295294 amending the administrative sanction from reprimand to three months
suspension. Aence, at the time the pleadings "ere referred bac1 to the IC8 in the same resolution, the Court "as not a"are that
the IC8 had already disposed of the motion for reconsideration filed by respondent counsel.
%hus, "hen the IC8 "as informed of the said Court resolution, it construed the same as granting Atty. !ealca7s motion for
reconsideration and as an order for IC8 to conduct a re2evaluation of the case. %he IC8 assumed that its resolution of *ctober ,9,
1995 "as already considered by this Court "hen it referred the case bac1 to the IC8. It failed to notice that its resolution denying
the motion for reconsideration "as not among those pleadings and resolution referred bac1 to it.
Aence, on the strength of this Court7s resolution "hich it had inadvertently misconstrued, the IC8 conducted a re2evaluation
of the case and came up "ith the assailed resolution no" sought to be reversed. %he Court holds that the error is not attributable
to the IC8. It is regrettable that the procedural infirmity alleged by complainant actually arose from a mere oversight "hich "as
attributable to neither party.
0oing into the merits, "e affirm the findings made by the IC8 that complainant engaged the services of respondent la"yer
only for the preparation and submission of the appellant7s brief and the attorney7s fees "as payable upon the completion and
submission of the appellant7s brief and not upon the termination of the case.
%here is sufficient evidence "hich indicates complainant7s "illingness to pay the attorney7s fees. As agreed upon,
complainant paid half of the fees in the amount of 85,9::.:: upon acceptance of the case. And "hile the remaining balance "as
not yet due as it "as agreed to be paid only upon the completion and submission of the brief, complainant nonetheless delivered
to respondent la"yer 84,:::.:: as the latter demanded. %his, not"ithstanding, Atty. !ealca "ithdre" his appearance simply
because of complainant7s failure to pay the remaining balance of 84,9::.::, "hich does not appear to be deliberate. %he
situation "as aggravated by respondent counsel7s note to complainant "ithdra"ing as counsel "hich "as couched in impolite
and insulting language.
&1:'
0iven the above circumstances, "as Atty. !ealca7s conduct Eust and properJ
>e find Atty. !ealca7s conduct unbecoming of a member of the legal profession. Knder Canon ,, of the Code of
8rofessional .esponsibility, la"yer shall "ithdra" his services only for good cause and upon notice appropriate in the
circumstances. Although he may "ithdra" his services "hen the client deliberately fails to pay the fees for the services,
&11'
under
the circumstances of the present case, Atty. !ealca7s "ithdra"al "as unEustified as complainant did not deliberately fail to pay
him the attorney7s fees. In fact, complainant eBerted honest efforts to fulfill his obligation. .espondent7s contemptuous conduct
does not spea1 "ell of a member of the bar considering that the amount o"ing to him "as only 84,9::.::. .ule ,:.4 of Canon
,:, mandates that a la"yer shall avoid controversies "ith clients concerning his compensation and shall resort to Eudicial action
only to prevent imposition, inEustice or fraud. -adly, for not so large a sum o"ed to him by complainant, respondent la"yer
failed to act in accordance "ith the demands of the Code.
%he Court, ho"ever, does not agree "ith complainant7s contention that the maBimum penalty of disbarment should be
imposed on respondent la"yer. %he po"er to disbar must be eBercised "ith great caution. *nly in a clear case of misconduct
that seriously affects the standing and character of the la"yer as an officer of the Court and member of the bar "ill disbarment be
imposed as a penalty. It should never be decreed "here a lesser penalty, such as temporary suspension, "ould accomplish the
end desired.
&1,'
In the present case, reprimand is deemed sufficient.
.EREFORE, in vie" of the foregoing, respondent Atty. uan -. !ealca is .G8.IMA+!G! "ith a "arning that
repetition of the same act "ill be dealt "ith more severely.
SO ORDERED.