VALENTIN C. MIRANDA v. released to respondent on.
Complainant talked
ATTY. MACARIO D. CARPIO
(A.C. 6281; September 16, 2011)
FACTS:
Complainant Valentin C. Miranda is one
of the owners of a parcel of land located at
Barangay Lupang Uno, Las Pias, Metro
Manila. Complainant initiated Land Registration
Commission (LRC) Case for the registration of
the property. During the course of the
proceedings, complainant engaged the services
of respondent Atty. Carpio as counsel in the
said case when his original counsel, Atty.
Samuel Marquez, figured in a vehicular
accident.
In complainant's Affidavit, complainant
and respondent agreed that complainant was
to pay P20,000.00 as acceptance fee and
P2,000.00 as appearance
fee. Complainant paid respondent the amounts
due him, as evidenced by receipts duly signed
by the latter. During the last hearing of the
case, respondent demanded the additional
P10,000.00 for the preparation of a
memorandum, which he said would further
strengthen complainant's position in the case,
plus 20% of the total area of the
subject property as additional fees for his
services.
Complainant did not accede to
respondent's demand for it was contrary to
their agreement. Moreover, complainant co-
owned the subject property with his siblings,
and he could not have agreed to the amount
being demanded by respondent without the
knowledge and approval of his co-heirs. As
a result of complainant's refusal to satisfy
respondent's demands, the latter became
furious and their relationship became sore.
A Decision was rendered, granting
the petition for registration, which Decision
was declared final and executory. The Land
Registration Authority (LRA) sent complainant
a copy of the letter addressed to the Register
of Deeds (RD) of Las Pias City, which
transmitted the decree of registration and
the original and owner's duplicate of the title of
the property.
Complainant went to the RD to get the
owner's duplicate of the Original Certificate of
Title (OCT).He was surprised to discover that
the same had already been claimed by and
to respondent on the phone and asked him to
turn over the owner's duplicate of the OCT,
which he had claimed without complainant's
knowledge, consent and
authority. Respondent insisted that
complainant first pay him the PhP10,000.00
and the 20% share in the property in
exchange for which, respondent would deliver
the owner's duplicate of the OCT. Once again,
complainant refused the demand, for not
having been agreed upon.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Carpio violated Canon 20
HELD:
Yes. Respondent's claim for his unpaid
professional fees that would legally give him
the right to retain the property of his client
until he receives what is allegedly due him has
been paid has no basis and, thus, is invalid.
In collecting from complainant
exorbitant fees, respondent violated Canon 20
of the Code of Professional Responsibility,
which mandates that a lawyer shall charge
only fair and reasonable fees. It is highly
improper for a lawyer to impose additional
professional fees upon his client which were
never mentioned nor agreed upon at the time
of the engagement of his services. At the
outset, respondent should have informed the
complainant of all the fees or possible fees that
he would charge before handling the case
and not towards the near conclusion of the
case. This is essential in order for
the complainant to determine if he has the
financial capacity to pay respondent before
engaging his services.
Respondent's further submission that he
is entitled to the payment of additional
professional fees on the basis of the principle
of quantum meruit has no merit. "Quantum
meruit, meaning `as much as he deserved' is
used as a basis for determining the lawyer's
professional fees in the absence of a contract
but recoverable by him from his client." The
principle of quantum meruit applies if a lawyer
is employed without a price agreed upon for
his services. In such a case, he would be
entitled to receive what he merits for his
services, as much as he has earned.[13] In the
present case, the parties had already entered
into an agreement as to the attorney's fees of
the respondent, and thus, the principle of
quantum meruit does not fully find application
because the respondent is already
compensated by such agreement.

Respondent's inexcusable act of

withholding the property belonging to his client
and imposing unwarranted fees in exchange
for the release of said title deserve the
imposition of disciplinary sanction.

Atty. Macario D. Carpio is SUSPENDED

from the practice of law for a period of six (6)
months, effective upon receipt of this Decision.
He is ordered to RETURN to the complainant
the owner's duplicate of OCT No. 0-94
immediately upon receipt of this decision. He is
WARNED that a repetition of the same
or similar act shall be dealt with more severely.