Pedro Salazar v.

Duran,  A.C. No. 7035, July 13, 2020

DOCTRINE: We emphasize that the dismissal of the criminal charge of false testimony against Atty. Duran has no
bearing on the administrative complaint. Disbarment proceedings are sui generis; they belong to a class of their
own and are distinct from that of civil or criminal actions.

We stress that lawyers enjoy the presumption of innocence, and the burden of proof rests upon the
complainant to clearly prove his allegations by preponderant evidence. We find it improper for the IBP to
suspend Atty. Duran from the practice of law for three months based solely on the allegation that he was engaged
in unethical conduct in his prior dealings with other clients. There is nothing in the records that supports this
claim.

FACTS: Pedro alleged that he engaged the services of Atty. Duran in a partition case involving the estate of his
(Pedro) parents. Thereafter, Pedro and Atty. Duran executed two contracts for attorney's fees: one, a contract on
contingent basis wherein 20% of any and all proceeds of the partition case will be paid to Atty. Duran; and second,
a contract wherein the attorney's fees and acceptance fee were set at P50,000.00 each, subject to certain
conditions.

Meantime, Pedro received a Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) check in the amount of P339,854.50 and LBP bonds
representing his share in the just compensation of his parent's property that was expropriated. With the money
available, Pedro informed Atty. Duran that he will pay him the attorney's fees. At the behest of Atty. Duran, Pedro
signed a waiver for the LBP bonds in his favor. However, when Pedro learned that the value of the LBP bonds was
considerably higher than the attorney's fees stipulated in the two contracts, he asked Atty. Duran to return the
excess but Atty. Duran refused. Pedro claimed that the value of the LBP bonds was P821,038.50, more or less.5

Pedro tried to cash the LBP check but Atty. Duran grabbed it from him and left. Pedro then learned that Atty.
Duran deposited the check in his own account with Allied Bank. Further, Atty. Duran secured a loan from LBP and
used the money value of the LBP bonds to pay off the loan. With these actuations of Atty. Duran, Pedro lost the
trust and confidence in him and terminated his services.

Later, another property of Pedro's parents was expropriated. Since the partition case between the heirs was still
pending, LBP required a court order for the release of the just compensation to the heirs. Pedro requested the
assistance of a new lawyer, to file the necessary motion in the partition case. To Pedro's surprise, Atty. Duran
intervened, claiming 20% of the just compensation due to Pedro. Eventually, the trial court ordered LBP to release
Pedro's share but withheld 20% of it pending the determination of Atty. Duran's claim.8

Pedro alleged that it was during the hearing on the motion that Atty. Duran committed false testimony. Atty.
Duran testified that he signed the LBP check only as a witness, and that it was Pedro who received the
money. However, on cross-examination, Atty. Duran stated that he deposited the check in his account with Allied
Bank, withdrew some money, and gave it to Pedro.

ISSUE: Whether Atty. Duran should be administratively liable for unethical conduct, dishonesty, false testimony,
violation of the lawyer's oath, and for acts inimical to his client.

RULING: No. The charges of dishonesty, false testimony and violation of the lawyer's Oath against Respondent,
are hereby DISMISSED.

Accordingly, respondent Atty. Armand Duran is REPRIMANDED for breach of his duties as a lawyer under the
Lawyer's Oath and Canon 10, Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility,  WITH A STERN WARNING that
a repetition of the same or any similar act will be dealt with more severely.
Yes. Rule 10.01 — A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in Court; nor shall he
mislead, or allow the Court to be misled by any artifice.

Atty. Duran did not disclose his true participation in the check right away. Nevertheless, he corrected himself after
realizing the erroneous statement he made. To be sure, during the mandatory conference before the IBP-CBD, he
reiterated that the check was indorsed to him by complainant. Truly, it was revealed to the court that he received
the proceeds of the check as an endorsee. In the circumstances, we conclude that Atty. Duran did not knowingly
and consciously lied about the events that transpired in his acquisition of the check with the intent to deceive the
trial court.

Complainant Perdo failed to substantiate his claim that (1) Atty. Duran grabbed the check from him before he
could deposit it in his LBP account, and (2) Atty. Duran "pressured" him to assign the value of the LBP bonds to
him. 

We find it improper for the IBP to suspend Atty. Duran from the practice of law for three months based solely on
the allegation that he was engaged in unethical conduct in his prior dealings with other clients. There is nothing in
the records that supports this claim. We stress that lawyers enjoy the presumption of innocence, and the
burden of proof rests upon the complainant to clearly prove his allegations by preponderant evidence.

Attorney’s fees
As to the moneys received by Atty. Duran from complainant, a perusal of the records shows that these were
payment for attorney's fees. The case is bereft of evidence that Atty. Duran forced or pressured complainant to
surrender the LBP bonds to him. In the circumstances, we conclude that the moneys given by complainant to Atty.
Duran were payment for services rendered.

Canon 20 of the CPR requires that attorney's fees must be fair and reasonable. Rule 20.1 of the CPR enumerates
criteria to be considered in assessing the proper amount of compensation that a lawyer should receive:

Rule 20.01. A lawyer shall be guided by the following factors in determining his fees:

(a) The time spent and the extent of the services rendered or required;

(b) The novelty and difficulty of the question involved;

(c) The importance of the subject matter;

(d) The skill demanded;

(e) The probability of losing other employment as a result of acceptance of the proffered case;

(f) The customary charges for similar services and the schedule of fees of the IBP Chapter to which he
belongs;

(g) The amount involved in the controversy and the benefits resulting to the client from the service;

(h) The contingency or certainty of compensation;

(i) The character or the employment whether occasional or established; and

Atty. Duran claimed that he thoroughly studied the partition case, filed the necessary pleadings, and through his
efforts, complainant secured part of the just compensation for some of the estate. Before complainant
terminated Atty. Duran's services, complainant was able to collect P13,171,334.66 as just compensation, 25% of
which represents his share. Complainant did not dispute these facts. Under the contingent fee arrangement, 20%
of complainant's share in the partition case shall inure to the benefit of Atty. Duran as attorney's fees, or an
estimated amount of P658,566.73.