AC 3149; (August, 1994) (Digest)
G.R. No. A.C. No. 3149 August 17, 1994
Cerina B. Likong, petitioner, vs. Atty. Alexander H. Lim, respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Cerina B. Likong obtained a loan from Geesnell L. Yap, for which she executed a promissory note, a deed of assignment of her U.S. pension checks, and a special power of attorney authorizing Yap to collect those checks. These documents were prepared and notarized by respondent Atty. Alexander H. Lim, Yap’s counsel. When complainant later revoked the special power of attorney, Yap, represented by respondent, filed an injunction case against her. Complainant was represented by Attys. Roland B. Inting and Erico B. Aumentado. The court issued a preliminary injunction preventing complainant from getting her checks. Subsequently, complainant and Yap filed a joint motion to allow Yap to withdraw the checks and entered into a compromise agreement, both prepared by respondent and signed by the parties “assisted by” respondent, but without the participation, signatures, or prior knowledge of complainant’s counsel of record. The compromise agreement increased complainant’s original obligation of P92,100.00 (which bore no interest except for a 25% attorney’s fee clause upon collection) to P150,000.00, payable in 54 monthly installments at 40% interest per annum. Complainant alleged that respondent prevented her from consulting her lawyers, misled her into signing the documents, and fraudulently assumed to represent her. Respondent claimed complainant’s counsel had abandoned her, which complainant denied.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Atty. Alexander H. Lim committed malpractice and grave misconduct warranting disciplinary action.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court found respondent guilty of malpractice and grave misconduct. He violated Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Ethics and Rules 1.01, 8.02, and 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility by directly negotiating and entering into a compromise agreement with a party represented by counsel without the latter’s knowledge and consent. The terms of the compromise agreement were grossly and patently disadvantageous to complainant, increasing her debt excessively. Respondent’s actions constituted deceitful conduct and encroachment upon the professional employment of another lawyer. The Court imposed upon respondent the penalty of SUSPENSION from the practice of law for a period of ONE (1) YEAR.