Javier v. Cornejo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Benedicto M. Javier charged respondent Silverio Q. Cornejo with malpractice on two grounds: (a) for demanding P195 from Javier by means of threat, and (b) for instigating Severina Paz Teodoro to file a baseless malpractice complaint against Javier. Procedural History: The charge of malpractice against Javier (Administrative Case No. 757) was dismissed by the Supreme Court on July 10, 1936. Javier then filed the present complaint against Cornejo. The Petition: Javier alleged that Cornejo's letter dated December 2, 1935, demanding P195 from him (Javier) within ten days, otherwise a complaint would be filed, constituted a threat. He also alleged that Cornejo, in connivance with Gregorio Tapia, induced Severina Paz Teodoro to accuse him of malpractice, knowing the charges were unfounded.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent attorney's letter demanding payment from the complainant attorney by threat of filing a complaint constitutes malpractice. Whether the respondent attorney instigated a baseless malpractice complaint against the complainant attorney.
Ruling
The complaint against the respondent is dismissed for lack of merit.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of demanding payment by threat: The Court found nothing improper in the respondent's letter of demand. The letter was an extra-judicial demand for the payment of a sum of money that Severina Paz Teodoro claimed was owed to her and which she sought to recover through the respondent's professional services. This was considered an honest effort on the part of the respondent to serve the interest of his client. The Court reiterated the lawyer's duty to owe entire devotion to the interest of his client, warm zeal in the maintenance and defense of his rights, and exertion of his utmost learning and ability, as stipulated in the Code of Ethics. Therefore, the act of demanding payment, even with a stated consequence of filing a complaint, was not deemed malpractice in this context. On the issue of instigating a baseless complaint: The Court found no merit in this allegation. It was established that Severina Paz Teodoro and her son had been demanding the return of the collected judgment fund from Javier long before respondent Cornejo intervened as counsel. Evidence showed that as early as March 23, 1931, a demand letter was sent to Javier for the remaining balance of P166.50, and it advised that failure to remit would lead to bringing the matter to the attention of the Court. This indicated that the complainant in Administrative Case No. 757 (Severina Paz Teodoro) already knew where to seek relief prior to Cornejo's involvement. The Court also noted that mutual bickerings and unjustifiable recriminations between attorneys detract from the dignity of the legal profession and would not receive sympathy from the Court.
Main Doctrine
A lawyer's extra-judicial demand for payment of a sum of money owed to a client, even if accompanied by a threat to file a complaint, is not improper if it is an honest effort to serve the client's interest. An attorney owes entire devotion to the interest of his client and warm zeal in the maintenance and defense of his rights.