G.R. No. A.C. No. 6281; September 26, 2011
VALENTIN C. MIRANDA, Complainant, vs. ATTY. MACARIO D. CARPIO, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Valentin C. Miranda, a co-owner of a parcel of land in Las Piñas, engaged the services of respondent Atty. Macario D. Carpio as counsel in Land Registration Case No. M-226 after his original counsel figured in an accident. The agreed fees were an acceptance fee of PhP20,000.00 and an appearance fee of PhP2,000.00, which complainant paid and were evidenced by receipts signed by respondent. During the last hearing, respondent demanded an additional PhP10,000.00 for a memorandum and twenty percent (20%) of the total area of the property (378 square meters) as additional fees. Complainant refused as this was contrary to their initial agreement and he could not agree without his co-heirs’ approval. The relationship soured. The court granted the petition for registration, and the decision became final. The Land Registration Authority transmitted the decree and title to the Register of Deeds. When complainant went to claim the owner’s duplicate of Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 0-94 on April 3, 2000, he discovered respondent had already claimed and received it on March 29, 2000, without his knowledge or consent. Respondent refused to turn over the title unless complainant paid the PhP10,000.00 and the 20% share (or its market value, which respondent claimed was PhP2,646,000.00). Complainant made repeated demands via letter and phone, but respondent reiterated his demand and threatened to have the OCT cancelled. On April 6, 2000, respondent registered an adverse claim on the OCT, asserting his claim to 20% of the property as payment for legal services. The title remained withheld.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Atty. Macario D. Carpio violated the Code of Professional Responsibility by unjustly withholding the owner’s duplicate certificate of title from his client and demanding excessive fees not agreed upon.

RULING

Yes, respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines Board of Governors’ resolution, which recommended suspension and ordered the return of the title, was sustained by the Court. Respondent’s claim of a retaining lien over the title to secure payment of alleged unpaid professional fees is invalid. Under Section 37, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, an attorney’s retaining lien requires: (1) a lawyer-client relationship; (2) lawful possession of the client’s funds, documents, or papers; and (3) an unsatisfied claim for attorney’s fees. Here, while a lawyer-client relationship existed and respondent had possession of the title, there was no valid unsatisfied claim. The evidence only proved an agreement for an acceptance fee and appearance fees, which were fully paid. Respondent’s claim of an additional 20% of the property as a fee was unsupported by proof and was denied by complainant. Therefore, respondent had no right to retain the title. His actions constituted a violation of Canon 16 (a lawyer shall hold client funds and properties in trust and deliver them upon demand) and Canon 20 (a lawyer shall charge only fair and reasonable fees) of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The defense of quantum meruit was also unavailing. Respondent was ordered to return the owner’s duplicate of OCT No. 0-94 to complainant.