AC 6210; (December, 2004) (Digest)
G.R. No. A.C. No. 6210 ; December 9, 2004
FEDERICO N. RAMOS, complainant, vs. ATTY. PATRICIO A. NGASEO, respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Federico Ramos engaged respondent Atty. Patricio Ngaseo in 1998 to handle a land recovery case. Ramos alleged the agreed fees were an acceptance fee of P20,000.00 and P1,000.00 per appearance, denying he promised any portion of the litigated land. After an adverse trial court decision, an appeal was filed. Ramos later discovered the notice of appeal was filed late. In 2003, Ramos received a demand letter from Atty. Ngaseo insisting on the delivery of 1,000 square meters of the subject land as payment for appearance fees, threatening legal action if unpaid.
Respondent Atty. Ngaseo presented a different version. He claimed the agreement, reached through intermediaries due to Ramos’s hearing impairment, included an acceptance fee of P40,000.00 and, in lieu of a cash appearance fee, a promise of 1,000 sq.m. of the land if the case was won. He asserted the demand was made only after the Court of Appeals had decided in Ramos’s favor and the decision had become final and executory in 2002, arguing the property was no longer in litigation.
ISSUE
Whether or not Atty. Patricio A. Ngaseo violated the Code of Professional Responsibility and Article 1491 of the Civil Code by demanding a portion of the litigated property as attorney’s fees.
RULING
The Supreme Court found Atty. Ngaseo guilty of conduct unbecoming a lawyer but modified the penalty. The Court clarified that Article 1491 of the Civil Code, which prohibits lawyers from acquiring property or rights in litigation, was not violated. The demand was made in January 2003, which was after the appellate decision had become final and executory in January 2002. At that point, the property was no longer “in litigation” as contemplated by the law, as the case had been terminated with finality.
However, the Court held that the respondent’s act of demanding the land as fees still constituted a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility, specifically Rule 20.04 of Canon 20, which mandates that a lawyer shall avoid controversies with clients concerning his compensation. His insistence on a contingent interest in the property, even post-litigation, through a demand letter that threatened court action, fostered conflict and was unbecoming of a member of the bar. The Court deemed the six-month suspension recommended by the IBP as disproportionately harsh for this infraction. Considering the power to suspend must be exercised with great caution, the Court imposed the penalty of a REPRIMAND with a warning.