G.R. No. A.C. No. 528; October 11, 1967
Angel Albano, complainant, vs. Atty. Perpetua Coloma, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Angel Albano filed a disbarment case against respondent Atty. Perpetua Coloma. He alleged that during the Japanese occupation, he and his mother, Delfina Aquino, retained Coloma as counsel in Civil Case No. 4147. After liberation, Coloma failed to expedite the case, leading them to hire another lawyer. Despite this, Coloma intervened to collect attorney’s fees and presented a document showing a contingent fee agreement for 33-1/3% of the recovery. Albano claimed the signatures on this document, purportedly his and his mother’s, were forged, a finding supported by a National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) report submitted to Judge Delfin B. Flores. Albano described himself as poor and unable to afford a lawyer for the disbarment proceeding and noted Coloma was an influential provincial board member.
In her answer, Coloma denied the allegations. She asserted the contingent fee agreement was genuine and that she diligently served as counsel, filing numerous pleadings, trying the case for several days, and securing a favorable judgment in the Court of First Instance, which was affirmed by the Court of Appeals and led to the dismissal of a petition for certiorari by the Supreme Court. She stated she was dismissed without cause only after winning the case. Coloma referenced a Court of Appeals decision (CA- G.R. No. 10563 -R) that upheld her attorney’s lien, found the contingent fee document genuine, and praised her valuable and diligent services over seven years, which were instrumental to the plaintiffs’ victory. She denied the NBI report’s authenticity, noting the trial and appellate courts had already found the signatures genuine based on witness testimony. She also clarified she was not a public official during her legal service (1944-1951) and was only elected to the provincial board in 1959.
The case was referred to the Solicitor General for investigation. The investigation revealed that only complainant Albano appeared, offering no evidence beyond the NBI report, and relying on the records of Civil Case No. 4147. Respondent Coloma submitted the case on the judicial records annexes to her answer. The Solicitor General found that the genuineness of the attorney’s fee agreement had already been fully litigated and conclusively determined in favor of Coloma by both the trial court and the Court of Appeals in the attorney’s lien proceedings. The Solicitor General concluded Coloma rendered diligent, conscientious, and successful legal services.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Atty. Perpetua Coloma should be disbarred based on the allegations of forging a contingent fee agreement and failing to expedite her client’s case.

RULING

The Supreme Court DISMISSED the disbarment charge against Atty. Perpetua Coloma.
The Court, adopting the report and recommendation of the Solicitor General, held that the core issue—the authenticity of the contingent fee agreement—had already been adjudicated. The trial court and the Court of Appeals, in the prior proceedings for recording and enforcing Coloma’s attorney’s lien, thoroughly examined the evidence, including witness testimony, and found the document to be genuine and duly executed. The Court of Appeals specifically commended Coloma’s diligent and valuable services, which were crucial to the favorable outcome for her clients. The NBI report presented by Albano in the disbarment proceeding did not overturn these judicial findings.
The Court emphasized that a lawyer worthy of hire is entitled to protection against clients attempting to avoid paying duly earned fees. It condemned the ingratitude of clients who, after benefiting from successful legal representation, seek to deprive their counsel of compensation and tarnish their reputation. The Court noted that while it would not hesitate to take disciplinary action for a lawyer’s nonfeasance or malfeasance, this was not such a case. Respondent Coloma was found not culpable; she performed her duties faithfully and effectively. Therefore, no disciplinary action was warranted.