CERINA B. LIKONG, petitioner, vs. ATTY. ALEXANDER H. LIM, respondent. PADILLA, J.: Cerina B. Likong filed this administrative case against Atty. Alexander H. Lim, seeking the latter's disbarment for alleged malpractice and grave misconduct. n !eptember "#$%, complainant obtained a loan of &#',"((.(( from a certain )eesnell L. *ap. Complainant executed a promissory note in favor of *ap and a deed of assignment, assigning to *ap pension checks +hich she regularly receives from the ,nited !tates government as a +ido+ of a ,! pensioner. -he aforementioned deed of assignment states that the same shall be irrevocable until the loan is fully paid. Complainant like+ise executed a special po+er of attorney authori.ing *ap to get, demand, collect and receive her pension checks from the post office at -agbilaran City. -he above documents +ere apparently prepared and notari.ed by respondent Alexander H. Lim, *ap's counsel. About three /01 months after the execution of the aforementioned special po+er of attorney, complainant informed the -agbilaran City post office that she +as revoking the special po+er of attorney preventing complainant from getting her pension checks from the -agbilaran City post office, As a conse2uence, )eesnell *ap filed a complaint for in3unction +ith damages against complainant. He +as represented by Atty Lim the respondent in the case. On July 1985, complainant and Yap filed a joint motion to allow the latter to withdraw the pension checks, wherein Cerina was not represented by her counsel, same with u! 1985 where a compromise a!reement were entered into by Cerina and Yap, tty "im wasn#t there to represent her client$ %ith this, petitioner filed a complaint for disbarment, based on the followin! alle!ations& ' complainant was pre(ented from seekin! assistance, ad(ise and si!nature of any of her two )*+ lawyers, no copy thereof was furnished to either of them or at least to complainant herself despite the latter-s pleas to be furnished copies of the same$ ' Complainant was e(en ad(ised by respondent that it was not necessary for her to consult her lawyers under the pretense that& )a+ this could only jeopardi.e the settlement, )b+ she would only be incurrin! enormous e/pense if she consulted a new lawyer, )c+ respondent was assistin! her anyway, )d+ she had nothin! to worry about the documents foisted upon her to si!n, )e+ complainant need not come to court afterwards to sa(e her time, and in any e(ent respondent already took care of e(erythin!, ' Complainant had been pre(ented from e/hibitin! fully her case by means of fraud, deception and some other form of mendacity practiced on her by respondent, ' 0inally, respondent fraudulently or without authority assumed to represent complainant and conni(ed in her defeat, ISSUE& %hether or not respondent is !uilty of misconduct under the Code of 1rofessional 2esponsibility$ HELD& 3he 4upreme Court held that Y54, the respondent was !uilty of 674CO89:C3 under the Code of 1rofessional 2esponsibility particularly Canon 9 which states that Negotiations with opposite party. A lawyer should not in any way communicate upon the subject of controversy with a party represented by counsel; much less should he undertake to negotiate or compromise the matter with him, but should deal only with his counsel. It is incumbent upon the lawyer most particularly to avoid everything that may tend to mislead a party not represented by counsel and he should not undertake to advise him as to the law, and !anon ".#", $.#% and "&.#'. 4uch acts of the respondent constitutin! malpractice and !ra(e misconduct cannot be left unpunished for not only do they erode confidence and trust in the le!al profession, they likewise pre(ent justice from bein! attained$ 2espondent was suspended from the practice of law for 1 year$