3Republic of tbe l~IJilippines

~uprenn~ ~ourt
.:ffianila

FIRST DIVISION

PEDRO SALAZAR, A.C. No. 7035

Complainant,
Present:

PERALTA, CJ, Chairperson,

CAGUIOA,
- versus - REYES, J., JR.,
LAZARO-JAVIER,
LOPEZ, JJ

Promulgated:
ATTY. ARMAND DURAN, "JU l 1 3 2020
Respondent.

x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----x

RESOLUT I ON

LOPEZ, J.:

This is an administrative complaint filed by Pedro Salazar against Atty.

Armand Duran for unethical conduct, dishonesty, false testimony, violation of
the lawyer's oath, and for acts inimical to his client.

Facts

In his Complaint-Affidavit, 1 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;2 and second, a contract wherein the

Roll,:;, pp. 1-9.

Id. at 11. The Agreement for Attorney's Fee reads in part, as follows:
That in consideration for fi ling a partition case to reco ver my hereditary share in the estates left b[y] my
late parents Jesus Salazar and Soledad F. Salazar, together with the handling of all other ancillary or collateral
cases related to or also invo lving the recovery o f said share in any court, agency o r tribunal. I PEDRO F.
SALAZAR. x x x do hereby bind myself to pay AT l'Y . ARM AN D A. DURAN of the " Duran and Associates"

t
...
Resolution 2 A.C. No. 7035

attorney's fees and acceptance fee were set at P50,000.00 each, subject to
certain conditions. 3

Meantime, Pedro received a Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP)

4
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

On March 17, 1997, 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. Fmiher, Atty. Duran secured a
loan from LBP and used the money value of the LBP bonds to pay off the
loan. 6 With thes~ actuations of Atty. Duran, Pedro lost the trust and
confidence in him and terminated his services. 7

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, Atty. Gualberto C. Manlagfiit, 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.9
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. 10

Law O ffi ce, on contingent bas is, twenty (20) p ercent or a ll rights, properties, real or persona l, that I may
recover as his attorney's fees.
3
Id. at 12. The conditions a re as follows :
a. Should there be no settlement w ithin 6 months as aforementioned, an addi tional sum of PI 00,000.00
s halI be paid within 30 days thereafter p lus PI 00,000.00 as additi onal expenses of litigation[;]
b. In case or appeal. attorney[ ']s fee ls] in the Court of Appeals is PI 00,000 .00 and in the Supreme Court.
another PI 00,000.00. These amounts are s ubjected to 10% annu al and cum ulative increase[;]
c. In add ition, fPedro Salazar] shall de fray all expenses of litigation inc luding appearance expenses of
Pl ,000.00 per heari ng. The sum o r PI 00.000.00 shall initia lly he paid to initiate the case[;]
cl. Other anc ill ary and collateral cases that may crop up also involving the recovery or said heredi tary
share also be compensc1lecl upon agreement or the parties.
Id. at !3- 14.
Id. at 3; p arag raph 8 o f t he C omplaint-Affi d a v it. See a lso id. a t 242.
Id. at 15.
l d. at 18.
Id. at 5; parag raph 2 1 of the Compl a int-Affidavit.
9
S ee id. at 39-40 . /.
10
S ee id. at 48-50 . (/
Resolution 3 A.C. No . 7035

Consequently, Pedro filed the instant complaint praying that Atty.

Duran be administratively investigated for his unethical conduct, dishonesty,
false testimony, and violation of the lawyer' s oath. 11

In his Comment, 12 Atty. Duran ave1Ted that the attorney's fees he

received from Pedro were reasonable and that he was the victim who was
betrayed by his client. He narrated that Pedro was one of the heirs of Soledad
F. Salazar. Since the heirs, except for Pedro, had already appropriated for
themselves substantial portions of the estate, Pedro sought assistance from
him to obtain his rightful share. Pedro, however, could not afford the expenses
of litigation. Thus, Atty. Duran agreed to advance all litigation expenses on
the condition that the attorney's fees will be on a contingent basis equivalent
to 20% of the value of Pedro's share in the estate.

Later, Atty. Duran learned that Pedro hired another lawyer to file
motions to withdraw a total of PS,046,945.13 just compensation from LBP.
Apparently, Pedro did this to avoid paying the 20% attorney's fees due to him
under the contract. When Atty. Duran discovered this, he intervened and
asked for the trial comi to segregate 20% of Pedro's share in the just
compensation as attorney's fees. It was during the hearing on the motion that
he allegedly committed false testimony. Nevertheless, Atty. Duran averred
that the false testimony charge was already dismissed. 13

On December 6, 2006, we referred the administrative complaint to the

Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and
recommendation. 14

Proceedings in the IBP

In his Position Paper, 15 Atty. Duran reiterated his comment to the

complaint. He explained that the contingent fee contract contained an
addendum allowing Pedro to pay attorney's fees on a non-contingent basis if
he can secure a loan to finance the expenses of litigation. 16 However, since
Pedro failed to secure the loan, the contingent fee contract was implemented.

Atty. Duran admitted that he deposited the LBP check in his own
account with Allied Bank but he withdrew Pl60,000.00 17 and gave it to
Pedro. Then, at his office, he gave P l 11 ,200.00 to Pedro after they agreed that
he will be paid an additional amount of P67,800.00 as attorney's fees. With

11
/d.at9 .
12
/d.at63-73.
13 Id. at 74-82, 98- 100, 101- 102.
14
/d.at l2I.
15
Id. at 224-236.
16
Id. at 248. The addendum reads:
The attached Agreement for attorncy('Js Ice is subject lo renegotiation with in 45 days from date thereof
if the client PEDRO F. SALAZAR is able lo arrange for a loan to pay the atlorncy( ']s fee on a non-contingent
basis in which case, a new agreement for attorney[ 'ls fee will be drafted based on the attached drafi.
Legasp i City, IO January 1997.
(signed)
PEDRO F. SALAZAR
17 Id. at 243-245.
Resolution 4 A.C. No. 7035

respect to the LBP bonds, Atty. Duran claimed that only P332,520.59 was
assigned to him, to which he realized P243,467.32 after trading.

On April 24, 2009, the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD)

issued its Report 18 finding Atty. Duran's inconsistent statements on the
witness stand reflective of his poor moral character and on his fitness to
practice law. However, since Pedro did not suffer any prejudice as a result of
Atty. Duran's acts, the IBP-CBD recommended that Atty. Duran be
reprimanded with a stern warning that repetition of the same or similar acts
shall be dealt with more severely.

As to the allegations of "check-grabbing" and that Atty. Duran forced

Pedro to surrender the LBP bonds to him, the IBP-CBD found no evidence to
support Pedro's cl~ims. Likewise, the attorney's fees received by Atty. Duran
under the first contract in the amount of f->423,111.85 were reasonable under
Canon 20 19 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).

On May 14, 2011 , the IBP Board of Governors passed a Resolution20

dismissing the charges of dishonesty, false testimony, and violation of the
lawyer's oath against Atty. Duran, but reprimanded him for unethical
conduct, viz.:

RESOLUTION NO. XIX-2011-189

Adm. Case No. 7035
Pedro Salazar v. Atty. Armand Duran

RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby unanimously

ADOPTED and APPROVED, with modification, the Report and
Recommendc,tion of the Investigating Commissioner in the
above-entitled case, herein made part of this Resolution as Annex "A"
and finding the recommendation ./idly supported by the evidence on
record and the applicable laws and rules, the charges ofdishonesty,.false
testimony and violation of the lawyer's Oath against Respondent, are
hereby DISMISSED. However, on the charge ofunethical conduct, Atty.
Armand Duran is hereby REPRIMANDED considering his conflicting
declaration under oath, with the stern Warning that repetition of the
same or similar acts shall be dealt with more severely. 21

Pedro sought reconsideration, 22 alleging a pattern of flawed behavior

on Atty. Duran that is deserving of the penalty of disbarment. Pedro claimed
that Atty. Duran previously defrauded another client in Naga City and that
Atty. Duran fomented lawsuits to advance his financial interests.

On February 11, 2014, the IBP Board of Governors granted Pedro's

motion and imposed upon Atty. Duran the penalty of suspension from the
practice of law for three months: 23
18
Id. at 259-279.
19
CANON 20 - A LAWYER SHALL CHARGE ONLY FAIR AND REASONABLE FEES .
20
Rollo, pp. 257-258.
21
Id. at 257. Emphases retained.

r
22
Rollo, pp. 280-3 l 2.
23
Id. at 368.
 Resolution 5 A.C. No. 7035

RESOLUTON NO. XX-2014-16

Adm. Case No. 7035
Pedro Salazar v. Atty. Armand Duran

RESOLVED to GRANT Complainant's Motion for Reconsideration

except for the penalty. Thus, Resolution No. XIX-2011 -189 dated Nfay
14, 2011 is hereby SET ASIDE and Respondent is hereby
SUSPENDED from the practice of law for three (3) months instead. 24

On April 25, 2014, the IBP-CBD transmitted the pertinent records of

the case to this Court. 25

Meantime, Atty. Duran filed a Motion to Set Aside Resolution No.

XX-2014-16, 26 which was transmitted by the IBP-CBD to the Office of the
Bar Confidant in its Indorsement dated May 29, 2014. 27 In his motion, Atty.
Duran averred that the new charges in the motion for reconsideration must be
reinvestigated properly and that he will be allowed to adduce his evidence to
controvert the new charges.

On June 27, 2016, we referred Atty. Duran's motion to the IBP. 28

On November 28, 2017, the IBP Board of Governors passed a

Resolution denying Atty. Duran's motion, viz.: 29

Adm. Case No. 7035

Pedro Salazar v. Atty. Armand Duran

RESOLVED to DENY the respondent's Motion/or Reconsideration there

being no new reason and/or new argument adduced to reverse the
previous.findings and decision of the Board ofGovernors. 30

Thereafter, the case was transmitted to this Court for review. 31

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

First off, we emphasize that the dismissal of the criminal charge of

false testimony against Atty. Duran has no bearing on the administrative

24
Id. Emphases retained.
25
Rollo, p. 367.
26
Id. at 394-417.
27
/cl. at 393.
28
Id. at 424-425.
29
Id. at 43 1-432.
30
Id. at 431. Emphases retained.
31
Id. at 429.
Resolution 6 A.C. No. 7035

complaint. Disbarment proceedings are sui generis; they belong to a class of

their own and are distinct from that of civil or criminal actions.32

We shall now discuss Atty. Duran's conduct as a lawyer.

In its Report, the IBP-CBD found Atty. Duran untruthful and unethical
when he testified about his participation in the check. Atty. Duran stated that
he signed in the check as a witness but his signature and account number
were found at the back of the check indicating that complainant indorsed it
to him. The IBP-CBP found Atty. Duran's claim of sudden recollection of
the events that actually transpired too contrived and convenient to be w01ihy
of belief. Atty. Duran could not have forgotten how he received a check for a
substantial sum especially the argument that allegedly ensued between him
and complainant on that day. Fmiher, Atty. Duran himself filed the motion to
segregate his supposed share in the just compensation. Hence, there was a
presumption that he prepared for his testimony. For him not to remember the
facts of his own case was, therefore, quite farfetched. Accordingly, the IBP
reprimanded him for unethical conduct.

However, the IBP modified the penalty to suspension for three months
after taking into consideration the new allegations of complainant in his
motion for reconsideration. Complainant alleged that Atty. Duran previously
defrauded another client and that he initiated lawsuits for personal gain.

We modify the recommendation of the IBP.

In all his dealings with his client and with the courts, every lawyer is
expected to be honest, imbued with integrity, and trustwmihy. 33 Every
lawyer is enjoined to obey the laws of the land, to refrain from doing any
falsehood in or out of comi or from consenting to the doing of any in court,
and to conduct himself according to the best of his knowledge and discretion
with all good fide lity to the courts and to his clients. 34 These expectations,
though high and demanding, are basic professional and ethical burdens of
every member of the Philippine Bar, for they have been given full
expression in the Lawyer's Oath that every lawyer of this country has taken
upon admission as a bona fide member of the Law Profession. 35

Canon 10, Rule 10.01 of the CPR echoes the Lawyer's Oath, viz.:

32
Gonzalez v. Atty. Alcaraz, 534 Phil. 4 7 1, 48 1-482 (2006).
33
Samonte v. Atty. Abellana, 736 Phil. 718, 729(20 14).
34
The Lawyer's Oath:
I, _ _ _ _ _ _, do solemnly swear that I will maintain allegiance to the Republic of the
Philippines; I will suppo11 its Constitution and obey the laws as well as the legal orders of the dul y
constituted authorities therei n; I will do no fa lsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court; I will not
wittingly or willingly promote or sue any groundl ess, fa lse or unlawful suit, nor give aid nor consent to
the same. I wiII delay no man for money or ma! ice, and wi II conduct myself as a lawyer according to the
best of my knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity as well to the cou11s as to my clients; and I
impose upon myself this voluntary obligation without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion. So
help me God.
35

I
Supr a note 33.
Resolution 7 A.C. No. 7035

CANON 10 - A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS

AND GOOD FAITH TO THE COURT.

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.

Indeed, to all lawyers, honesty and trustworthiness have the highest

value. In Young v. Batuegas, 36 we explained:

A lawyer must be a disciple of truth. He swore upon his

admission to the Bar that he will "do no falsehood nor consent to the
doing of any in court" and he shall "conduct himself as a lawyer
according to the best of his knowledge and discretion with all good
fidelity as well to the courts as to his clients." He should bear in mind
that as an officer of the court his high vocation is to correctly infom1 the
court upon the law and the facts of the case and to aid it in doing justice
and arriving at correct conclusion. The courts, on the other hand, are
entitled to expect only complete honesty from lawyers appearing and
pleading before them. While a lawyer has the solemn duty to defend his
client's rights and is expected to display the utmost zeal in defense of
his client's cause, his conduct must never be at the expense of truth.

Thus, we penalized lawyers for withholding the true facts of the case
with intent to mislead the court. In Molina v. Atty. Magat, 37 we suspended
the respondent lawyer for six months for making untruthful statements on
the existence of a similar case to mislead the court into dismissing the case
due to double jeopardy. 38 Similarly, in Coloma v. Ulep, 39 we imposed the
penalty of suspension from the practice of law for six months against the
erring government lawyer who falsely testified in court. Meanwhile, in
Maligaya v. Atty. Doronilla, Jr., 40 the respondent lawyer stated untruthfully
in open court that complainant had agreed to withdraw his lawsuits. His
unethical conduct was compounded by his obstinate refusal to acknowledge
the impropriety of his acts. We suspended him from the practice of law for
two months after considering mitigating circumstances, i.e. he admitted
during investigation the falsity of the statements he made, there was no
material damage to complainant, and he was not previously charged with an
administrative offense.

In the present case, Atty. Duran had been untruthful when he testified
during the hearing on the motion to segregate 20% of complainant's share in
the just compensation. At first, he claimed that his signature appearing at the
back of the check was only as a witness and not an endorsee. Further, he
feigned unawareness of the account number appearing below his own
signature at the back of the check. It must be noted that under the Negotiable

36 451 Phil. 155, 161 - 162 (2003), quoted in De Leon v. Atty. Castelo, 654 Phil. 224, 232 (20 I I).
37
687 Phil. 1 (20 I 2).
38
Id. at 6.

r
39
A.C. No. 5961, February 13, 2019.
40
533 Phil. 303 (2006).
Resolution 8 A.C. No. 7035

Instruments Law, 4 1 a signatu re on an instrument payabl e to order, such as a

check, w ithout additional words, constitutes an indorsement. 42

ATTY. MANLAGNIT:
Q: Now, Atty. Duran xx x about March 17, 1997 you received a check
from Pedro M. Salaza r in the amount of P339,854.60 xx x at the back
of the check is a s ignature o r P. Salazar and apparently your signature.
kindly look over thi s document and tell the honorable court whether
you have taken or received the check from Pedro Salazar?

A: I merely signed as a witness. He was the one who received the

money. I have no ri ght to receive the money. I am not the payee.

Q: You mean your signature here is not an endorsement?

A: That is only as witness. I do not know the bank requirements but I

was together with Mr. Salazar and then he was the one in the counter
and 1 was sitting in the benches for those who are waiting for such to be
call ed and I was asked by Mr. Salazar to approach and to signed (si c) as
a witness. That's only my participation.

Q: In short, Atty. Duran, you ~u-e saying uncle,- oath that you did
not receive a single centavo out of the check'!

A: No, J did not say that. I say that l was not the one wh o received
the money. He was the one who received the money because he was
the payee because I was only made a witness.

COURT (to the witness)

Q: This 0460-004056 below the signature of Atty. Du ran is that

the account number or what?

A: I do not know, Your Honor.~ 3

On cross-examination, however, Atty. Duran recanted his testimony.

He clarified that he deposited the check in his own account w ith A ll ied Bank
after reaching an agreement with the complainant that he w ill be paid for the
litigation expenses that he advanced w ith the value of the check.

Q: Atty. D~1ra11 . x x x with respect to the check according to you, you

were only as ked to signed (sic) as a witness?

A: Which check?

Q: The check which you have already identified 111 the sum of

11
' Act No. 203 I , february 3, 19 1I.
12
' See Sections 30 and 3 I , Act No. 203 I .
Sec. JO. What consti/11/e.1· negotiation. - An instrument is negotiated when it is transferred from one
person to another in such manner as to constitute the transferee the holder thereof. If payable to bearer, it
is negotiated by delivery; if payable lo order, it is negotiated by the indorsement of the holder and
completed by deli very.
Sec. 3 1. l11dorse m e111; //01v Made . - The indorsemenl must be writte n on the instrument itself or
upon a paper aHachecl thereto. The signature 0f lhe indorser. w ithout additional words, is a sufficienl
indorsement.
41
Rollo, pp. 39-40. Emphasis supplied.

)
Resolution 9 A.C. No. 7035

P339,000.00, so you merely signed there as a witness, and it was

[complainant/Pedro] who actually [cashed] the check, am I right?

A: I remember this check now. You know it's been a long time. I
remember that, that check after discussing we were supposed to
talk about the reimbursement of the amount that I had advanced
and according to him [complainant/Pedro], let[']s go to your bank,
I now remember it was deposited in my account but we were
together and I gave him the money.

COURT:

Where?

WITNESS

A: In the bank.

COURT (to the witness)

Q: On the same day that you have deposited that?

A: Yesxxx

Q: What is your bank?

A: Allied.

Q: From the Land Bank of the Philippines, you mean to say that
you withdrew from your own funds because that check cannot be
encash[ed] except from the Land Bank of the Philippines?

A: I deposited it in my account.

Q: Correct, you mean to say you withdrew an amount to this check that
you gave to Mr. Salazar?

A: I think so, I even have money in my vault, it could be lower amount

and then he cover (sic) the balance of the amount in my vault. 44

Clearly, Atty. Duran did not disclose his true participation in the check
right away. Nevertheless, he conected himself after realizing the erroneous
statement he made. To be sure, during the mandatory conference before the
IBP-CBD on October 2, 2007, he reiterated that the check was indorsed to
him by complainant. 45 Truly, it was revealed to the comi 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

44
Id. at 48-50.
45
See id. at 128.
ATTY. DURAN:
That I and my client, the complainant in this case, went together to the Land Bank to get this check
and by agreement this check was turned over to me by Mr. Salazar for encashment and an amount was
partially taken by Mr. Salazar from the account of this representation as respondent inside the Allied
Bank Lega,p; c;ty ;t,,lf. , , ,. /
Resolution 10 A.C. No. 7035

that transpired in his acqu isiti on of the check w ith the intent to dece ive the
trial court.

Furthermore, complainant failed to substantiate his claim that (I) Atty.

D uran grabbed the check fro m him before he could deposit it in his LBP
account, and (2) Atty. Duran "pressure[d]" him to ass ign the val ue of the
LBP bonds to him. We quote with approval the di squisition of the IBP-CB 0 :

4.09. Complainant ul so takes issue wi th respondent' s fa ilure to mention

anything ut all about the "check-grubbin g." Complainant's lawyer,
however, naver directl y questioned respondent about how the latter
ph ysically acquired the c heck or explicitly as ked him if he actually
grabbed it from co m pin inant. /\ l any rrite, other than complainant' s
allegations, there is no evidence lo supr,ort such assertions. No doubt,
the supposed grabbing would have caused quite a stir in the bank
premises yet complaina nt diet not present any witness to corro borate his
claim. Thi s Commission is thus inclined to conclude that the alleged
incident did not take place. The Regional Prosecutor' s disposition of
the same issue is quite convincing:

x x x the claim o f [complainant hereinj that [respondent

here in] grabbed the check while he was about to encash the same
with the Lmd Bank of Legazp i is incred ible, since human nature
dictates that irindccd [respondent] had done that lcomplai nan1' s]
reaction would be to run afte r him or seek the he lp of bank
employees, [otherj bank c lients ancl [bankj security guard[s]. He
cou ld have created a commotion or a scene that could have
:1ttracted ltheir attentionJ. But he never did that. Nor did he fil e
charges again st [respondentl as a consequence of his alleged
or
grabbi ng sa id checks. xx x.

4. 10. Complainant also alleges that respondent forced him to cede the
Land Bank bonds in the amount o l' P295,573 .86 in favor of respondent.
This Commission likewise finds no evidence on record to substantiate
such allegation. Complainant's fai lure to take measures to invalidate
the agreement or to prevent the bonds from being traded further
diminishes the verac ity o l'this claim.

Accordingly, we deem the penalty of reprim and recommended by the

IBP-CBD in its Report dated April 24, 2009 and approved by the IBP Board
of Govern ors in its Resol ution No. XIX-2011-189 dated May 14, 201 l
sufficient. Atty. Duran was care less and remiss in his duty to correctly
inform the court of the facts and circumstances surrounding the check at the
earliest opportunity, in vio lation of the lawyer's oath and Canon I 0, Rule
1.0 l of the CPR. F urther, the re is no ev idence that complainant suffe red any
material damage or prejudice as a result of the recanted testimony, or of any
malice or intent to defraud the t rial court on the part of Atty. Duran. 46 Also,
t his is Atty. Duran's first offense and there is nothing in t he records that
shows that a s imilar administrative offense was filed against him.47

41
' See Aifaligaya v. Doronil/a, .Jr., s11prn note 40 al 3 I I, ciling Cailing v. Espinosa, I03 Phil. I 165 ( 1958).
17
· Id., citi ng e.g., Whit11·un v. Atien:::a, 457 Phil. 11 (2003); A/canlora v. l1 e/ianco, 44 1 Phil. 514 (2002);
Fernande::: v. Nm'Cl'O. .Jr., 441 Phil. 506 ('.2002).

(
 Resolution 11 A.C. No . 7035

Therefore, 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. 48

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 . We note in
the Complaint-Affidavit that complainant intended the LBP check as
payment to Atty. Duran for his services,49 although not for the entire amount
of the check. Records also show that complainant and Atty. Duran divided
the value of the LBP bonds between them. 50 As previously discussed, 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.

We shall now determine whether the attorney's fees received by Atty.

Duran are unconscionable.

Canon 20 51 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;

48
Rodica v. Atty. Lazaro et al., 693 Phi l. 174, 183 (201 2).
'19 See paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of the Complaint-Affidav it; rollo, p. 2 .
4. While the partition case was pending I was able to receive money as my share in the compensation for the
property of my late parents that was involuntarily taken by the government through it Agrarian Reform Program.
This money consisted of land bonds plus cash in the sum of Php339,854.60.
5. Atty. ARMAND DURAN has no participation whatsoever in that case for just compensation. The government
initiated and fixed the compensation and it was also the government through the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP
for brevity) who effected payment. As heirs, our respective shares were agreed and fixed us.
6. Because of this supervening event that was independent from our agreement, I informed and apprised
respondent Atty. Duran that I may pay him the attorney's fees. per contract, when I receive the money. x x x.
50 See id. at 242.

I
51
Supra note 19.
Resolution 12 A.C. No. 7035

(i) The character or the emp loyment, whether occasional or

establi shed; and
(j) T he professiona l standing or the lawyer.

Atty. Duran adm itted that out of the P339,854.60 value of the check
deposited in his account, he gave Pl 60,000.00 to complainant,52 leaving a
balance of Pl 79,854.60. Complainant did not dispute receiving this amount.
Further, the value of the LBP bonds assigned to Atty. Duran was
?332,520.59. 53 In all, Atty. Duran received ?512,375.1 9 54 as attorney's
fees. The complainant conceded in the terminati on letter which he prepared,
that Atty. Duran was already paid "more than [P500,000.00]." 55

Atty. Duran c laimed 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 ab le to collect Pl 3,171,334.66 as
just compensation, 25% of wh ich 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 ?658,566.73 .56

Considering the number of properties involved in the partition case

(74 parcels of lancl), 57 that Atty. Duran is the counsel of complainant in
other cases, to wh ich attorney's fees was not proven to have been paid,58
and that Atty. Duran has been in practice of law fo r at least four decades, we
find the amount of P512,375 . l 9 attorney's fees commensurate to the services
rendered and reasonable in the c ircumstances.

FOR THESE REASONS, this Court resolves to ADOPT and

APPROVE the recommendation of the Integrated Bar of the Phil ippines'
Board of Governors in its Notice of Reso lutio n No. XlX-2011- 189 dated May
14, 2011. The Resolution No. XX-2014-1 6 dated February 11 , 20 14 and
Notice of Resolution dated November 28, 2017 are hereby SET ASIDE.
Accordingly, res ponde nt Atty. Armand Duran is REPRIMANDED for
breach of his duties as a lawyer under the Lawyer 's Oath and Canon 10, Ru le
I 0.0 l of the Code of Professional Respo ns ibility, W.ITH A STERN
WARNING that a repetition of the same or any similar act w ill be dealt w ith
more severely.

SO ORDERED.

51
Rollo, pp. 243-245.
53
Id. at 70: parag raph 4.8. sub-paragraph c of the Co mm e nt.
51
• 'P 179,854.60 plus f'3 32,520.59.
55
See mllo, p. I 8. The Letter reads in part. as fo llows:
Y o u co111pl,1incd that you have not hc:c11 paid y ou r ,1llorncy ' s k cs. You know th is is 1101 truc hccnusc per
my n; t:orcl. y ou lwvc al ready t,1kc:11 from me more: than Fivc I l u11drccl Thousand l'csos ( P5U0.000.00).
sr, f" 13 , 17 1,334.66 X 0.25 X 0.20 = J>65 8.566. 73.
57
See rollo, pp. 337-349.
,R Id. <ii 18.
Resolution 13 A.C. No. 7035

WE CONCUR:

Chief J ustice
Chai rpe rson

~~:R~~
Associate Justice

AMY

..