1 Likong vs. Lim - Digest
1 Likong vs. Lim - Digest
FACTS:
In September 1984, complainant Cerina B. Likong obtained a loan of P92,100.00 from
a certain Geesnell L. Yap. Likong executed a promissory note in favor of Yap and a deed of
assignment, assigning to Yap pension checks regularly received from the United States. The
aforementioned deed of assignment states that the same shall be irrevocable until the loan is
fully paid. Likong likewise executed a special power of attorney (SPA) authorizing Yap to get,
demand, collect and receive her pension checks from the post office at Tagbilaran City. The
above documents were apparently prepared and notarized by respondent Alexander H. Lim,
Yap’s counsel.
On December 1984, or three (3) months after the execution of the SPA, complainant
informed the Tagbilaran City post office that she was revoking the special power of attorney.
As a consequence, Geesnell Yap filed a complaint for injunction with damages against
complainant. Respondent Alexander H. Lim appeared as counsel for Yap while Attys. Roland
B. Inting and Erico B. Aumentado appeared for complainant (as defendant). The court issued
a writ of preliminary injunction preventing complainant from getting her pension checks from
the Tagbilaran City and all other post offices.
On 26 July 1985, complainant and Yap filed a joint motion to allow the latter to
withdraw the pension checks. This motion does not bear the signatures of complainant’s
counsel of record but only the signatures of both parties, “assisted by” respondent Attorney
Alexander H. Lim.
On 2 August 1985, complainant and Yap entered into a compromise agreement again
without the participation of the former’s counsel. In the compromise agreement, it was stated
that complainant Cerina B. Likong admitted an obligation to Yap of P150,000.00. It was
likewise stated therein that complainant and Yap agreed that the amount would be paid in
monthly installments over a period of 54 months at an interest of 40% per annum discounted
every six (6) months. The compromise agreement was approved by the trial court on 15
August 1985.
On November 24, 1987, Cerina B. Likong filed this administrative case against Atty.
Alexander H. Lim, seeking the latter’s disbarment for alleged malpractice and grave
misconduct. Complainant allege that she was prevented from seeking assistance, advise and
signature of any of her two (2) lawyers; no copy was furnished to either of them or at least to
complainant herself despite the latter’s pleas to be furnished copies of the same. Complainant
had been prevented from exhibiting fully her case by means of fraud, deception and some
other form of mendacity practiced on her by respondent.
Respondent filed his Answer stating that counsel for complainant, Atty. Roland B.
Inting had abandoned his client. Atty. Lim further stated that the other counsel, Atty. Enrico
Aumentado, did not actively participate in the case.
ISSUE:
Whether respondent Atty Alexander H. Lim exhibited malpractice and grave
misconduct as to constitute disbarment from the practice of law