AM 2662 CFI; (November, 1982) (Digest)
G.R. No. A.M. No. 2662-CFI November 25, 1982
Flaviano A. Pelmoka, complainant, vs. Felix T. Diaz, Jr., Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija, Branch IV, respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Flaviano A. Pelmoka, a lawyer, charged respondent Judge Felix T. Diaz, Jr. with gross ignorance of the law, failure to protect his attorney’s charging lien, and partiality. The charges stemmed from Civil Case No. 279-G, a partition and reconveyance case. Respondent judge inherited the long-pending case in 1976. He denied various pending motions, including one for the appointment of commissioners, to avoid piecemeal adjudication and because a related appeal involving the same properties was pending before the Court of Appeals. Eventually, all parties except one defendant signed a compromise agreement, which the judge approved. The agreement stipulated that parties would separately pay their own lawyers’ fees.
ISSUE
Whether respondent judge is administratively liable for his actions in handling Civil Case No. 279-G, particularly for failing to protect complainant’s charging lien for attorney’s fees.
RULING
The Court dismissed most charges but found respondent judge liable for failing to protect the complainant’s charging lien. The Court held that the judge’s decisions to deny the pending motions and to hold the trial in abeyance pending a related appeal were judicious exercises of discretion to avoid conflicting rulings and did not constitute gross ignorance of the law. Similarly, approving the compromise agreement signed by the parties and their counsel was proper.
However, the judge committed a serious error in failing to protect the complainant’s right to collect his professional fees. After approving the compromise, the judge allowed all parties, including the complainant’s own clients, to withdraw their cash shares from the court deposit without first securing the complainant’s fees. This was grossly unfair, as it left the lawyer without recourse to the fund his services helped produce. While the compromise stated parties would pay their lawyers separately, the judge should not have allowed the withdrawal without first determining, on the basis of quantum meruit, a reasonable fee to be withheld from the shares. For this failure, respondent judge was REPRIMANDED.