G.R. No. A.C. No. 5798; January 20, 2005
Alex B. Cueto, complainant, vs. Atty. Jose B. Jimenez, Jr., respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Alex Cueto engaged the services of respondent Atty. Jose Jimenez, Jr. as a notary public to notarize a Construction Agreement in October 1999. The building owner was respondent’s son. After notarization, respondent demanded a ₱50,000 notarial fee. Complainant, though surprised, paid ₱30,000 in cash and issued a post-dated check for the ₱20,000 balance. Before the check’s maturity, complainant requested respondent not to deposit it due to insufficient funds, citing that respondent’s son had not yet paid him for the construction project. Respondent nevertheless deposited the check, which was dishonored.
Subsequently, respondent filed a criminal complaint for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (Bouncing Checks Law) against complainant before the City Prosecutor’s Office of Angeles City. In response, complainant filed this administrative case, alleging that respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility by using a criminal action to collect the balance of his notarial fee.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Atty. Jose Jimenez, Jr. violated the Code of Professional Responsibility by filing a criminal case to collect his notarial fee.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court found respondent guilty of violating Canon 20, Rule 20.4 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and severely reprimanded him. The Court clarified that the notarial fee of ₱50,000, representing 1% of the ₱5 million contract price, was not per se exorbitant in the context of real estate transactions, and complainant’s payment constituted implicit agreement to the fee.
However, respondent’s act of filing a criminal case for the dishonored check to collect the unpaid balance was highly improper. Canon 20, Rule 20.4 mandates that a lawyer shall avoid controversies with clients concerning compensation and shall resort to judicial action only to prevent imposition, injustice, or fraud. The Court found no such imposition, injustice, or fraud here to justify the legal action, especially since complainant had already paid more than half of the fee and his financial difficulty was linked to respondent’s own son’s failure to pay him. Resorting to a criminal suit to recover a fee balance, under these circumstances, demonstrated a lack of candor, fairness, and loyalty to a client and detracted from the dignity of the legal profession, which is imbued with public service. The Court emphasized that while a lawyer is entitled to reasonable compensation, the manner of collection must uphold the profession’s integrity.