Cueto v. Jimenez
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Alex B. Cueto engaged the services of respondent Atty. Jose B. Jimenez, Jr. as notary public for a Construction Agreement. Respondent demanded a ₱50,000 notarial fee. Complainant paid ₱30,000 in cash and issued a check for the remaining ₱20,000. Complainant later requested respondent not to deposit the check due to insufficient funds, also informing respondent that respondent's son, Jose Jimenez III, had not paid complainant's services as general contractor. Respondent deposited the check, which was dishonored for insufficient funds. Subsequently, respondent filed a complaint for violation of BP 22 against Cueto. Procedural History: Cueto filed an administrative complaint against Jimenez for violating the Code of Professional Responsibility and Canons of Professional Ethics by filing the BP 22 case to collect his notarial fee. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Commission on Bar Discipline found respondent guilty of violating Canon 20, Rule 20.4 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and recommended a reprimand. The IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved this report and recommendation. The Petition: The case reached the Supreme Court for resolution of the administrative complaint against Atty. Jose B. Jimenez, Jr.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent Atty. Jose B. Jimenez, Jr. violated the Code of Professional Responsibility and Canons of Professional Ethics by filing a criminal case for violation of BP 22 against his client, Engr. Alex B. Cueto, to collect the balance of his notarial fee. Whether the notarial fee demanded by the respondent was exorbitant.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found Atty. Jose B. Jimenez, Jr. guilty of violating Canon 20, Rule 20.4 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and imposed a severe reprimand.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of filing the BP 22 case: The Court agreed with the IBP that the respondent's conduct in filing a criminal case for violation of BP 22 against the complainant was highly improper. Canon 20, Rule 20.4 of the Code of Professional Responsibility mandates that a lawyer shall avoid controversies with clients concerning compensation and resort to judicial action only to prevent imposition, injustice, or fraud. Similarly, Canon 14 of the Canons of Professional Ethics advises against lawsuits with clients concerning compensation, except to prevent injustice, imposition, or fraud. The Court found no imposition, injustice, or fraud in this case to justify the legal action. The complainant had already paid more than half of the fee, and resorting to a suit for the balance revealed shameful conduct and inconsiderate behavior, undermining the tenet of candor, fairness, and loyalty under Canon 15. The Court also considered the failure of respondent's son to pay his own obligation to the complainant, which likely contributed to the complainant's shortage of funds, suggesting that respondent should have been more tolerant. On the issue of the notarial fee: The Court found the complainant's claim that the ₱50,000 notarial fee was exorbitant to be debatable. It was noted that in real estate and construction projects, it is a recognized practice to base notarial fees on the contract price. The demanded fee represented only 1% of the ₱5,000,000 contract price, which was not considered more than a reasonable recompense for the service rendered. Furthermore, the Court held that the parties implicitly agreed on the cost of the notarial service, and it was the complainant's responsibility to inquire about the fee and negotiate if necessary. His payment in cash and by check demonstrated acquiescence to the terms.
Main Doctrine
A lawyer who files a criminal case for violation of BP 22 against a client for a dishonored check representing a balance of notarial fees, without any showing of imposition, injustice, or fraud, violates Canon 20, Rule 20.4 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Canon 14 of the Canons of Professional Ethics, which mandate avoiding controversies with clients concerning compensation and resorting to judicial action only to prevent imposition, injustice, or fraud.