Cueto v. Jimenez
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Engr. Alex B. Cueto engaged the services of respondent Atty. Jose B. Jimenez, Jr. as a notary public for a Construction Agreement. Respondent demanded P50,000 as notarial fee. Complainant paid P30,000 in cash and issued a check for P20,000 post-dated December 28, 1999. 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 yet 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: Complainant Cueto filed an administrative complaint against respondent Jimenez on November 16, 2001, alleging violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Canons of Professional Ethics for filing the BP 22 case to collect his notarial fee. Respondent failed to file an answer and appear before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Commission on Bar Discipline. The IBP Commission 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 recommendation. The Petition: The case reached the Supreme Court for resolution following the IBP's recommendation for disciplinary action against Atty. Jose B. Jimenez, Jr. The core issue was whether respondent's conduct in filing a criminal case for violation of BP 22 against his client, Cueto, to collect the balance of his notarial fee, constituted a violation of professional ethics.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Atty. Jose B. Jimenez, Jr. violated Canon 20, Rule 20.4 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Canon 14 of the Canons of Professional Ethics by filing a criminal case for violation of BP 22 against his client to collect the balance of his notarial fee. Whether the P50,000 notarial fee demanded by 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. The Court affirmed the IBP's finding that while the notarial fee was not exorbitant, the act of filing a BP 22 case to collect the balance was improper.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court held that respondent Atty. Jose B. Jimenez, Jr. violated Canon 20, Rule 20.4 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Canon 14 of the Canons of Professional Ethics. The Court emphasized that lawyers should avoid controversies with clients concerning compensation and resort to judicial action only to prevent imposition, injustice, or fraud. In this case, there was no clear imposition, injustice, or fraud to justify the filing of a BP 22 case. Complainant had already paid more than half of the fee, and the dishonor of the check might have been influenced by the failure of respondent's son to pay his own obligation to the complainant. Resorting to a suit under these circumstances revealed shameful conduct and inconsiderate behavior, undermining the tenet of candor, fairness, and loyalty to the client. The Court reiterated that while lawyers are entitled to reasonable recompense, they must never resort to judicial action in a manner that detracts from the dignity of the profession. On Issue 2: The Supreme Court agreed with the IBP that the P50,000 notarial fee was not exorbitant. The Court noted that it is a recognized practice to base notarial fees on the contract price, and the demanded fee represented only 1% of the P5,000,000 contract price. Furthermore, the Court found that the parties implicitly agreed on the cost of the notarial service. Complainant had the responsibility to inquire about the fee and was free to accept, reject, or negotiate it. His failure to negotiate and his subsequent payment in cash and check constituted implicit acquiescence to the terms of the notarial service. Therefore, the fee itself was not the basis for disciplinary action.
Main Doctrine
A lawyer's resort to judicial action to collect fees must be limited to preventing imposition, injustice, or fraud. Filing a criminal case for violation of BP 22 to collect a balance of a notarial fee, especially when the client has already paid a substantial portion and the dishonor of the check might be linked to other financial dealings, constitutes improper conduct and a violation of professional ethics, as it detracts from the dignity of the legal profession.