Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Tanhueco v. de Dumo
Tanhueco v. de Dumo
de Dumo compensation
Complainant Hilaria Tanhueco filed before the Court a Petition for Canon 20 – A lawyer shall charge only fair and reasonable fees
Disbarment against respondent Justiniano G. de Dumo for having
violated the Canons of Professional Ethics by his (a) refusal to remit Held:
to her money collected by him from debtors of the complainant; and
(b) refusal to return documents entrusted to him as counsel of We find the findings of fact of the Solicitor General supported by the
complainant in certain collection cases. evidence of record. We are, however, unable to accept his
recommendation.
A year later, one Jose Florencio N. Tanhueco claiming to be the
nephew and representative of the complainant, addressed a sworn Moneys collected by an attorney on a judgment rendered in favor of
letter complaint to Mrs. Imelda R. Marcos against the respondent for his client, constitute trust funds and must, be immediately paid over
(a) refusal to remit the money collected by respondent from debtors to the client.
of complainant's aunt, Mrs. Hilaria Tanhueco Vda. de David; (b)
refusal to return documents entrusted to him in his capacity as Money of the client or collected for the client or other trust property
counsel in certain cases; and (c) abandonment of cases in respect of coming into the possession of the lawyer should be reported and
which his professional services had been engaged. accounted for promptly and should not under any circumstance be
comingled with his own or be used by him.
The Solicitor General found that:
There is in the case at bar clear admissions by both complainant and When respondent withheld and refused to deliver the money
respondent of an attorney-client relationship between them, received by him for his client, the deceased complainant Hilaria
specifically in the collection of debts owing complainant. Respondent Tanhueco, he breached the trust reposed upon him. The claim of the
also admitted, in his answer to the complaint and in his testimony, respondent that complainant had failed to pay his attorney's fees, is
having received P12,000.00 from indebtor Constancia Manosca not an excuse for respondent's failure to deliver any amount to the
without turning over the amount to his client, complainant herein, and complainants.
applying it instead as part of his attorney's fees.
The fact that a lawyer has a lien for fees on moneys in his hands
The circumstance that an attorney has a lien for his attorney's fees collected for his client, does not relieve him from his duty promptly to
on the money in his hands collected for his client does not relieve account for the moneys received; his failure to do so constitutes
him from the obligation to make a prompt accounting. Undoubtedly, professional misconduct.
respondent's failure to account for the P12,000.00, representing
payment of the judgement debt of Mañosca constitutes In the present case, what respondent could have properly done was
unprofessional conduct and subjects him to disciplinary action. to make an account with his client, the complainant, deduct his
Nonetheless, it has likewise been recognized that a lawyer is as attorney's fees due in respect of the amount actually collected by
much entitled to judicial protection against injustice, imposition or him, and turn over the remaining balance to the complainant. The
fraud on the part of his client; and that the attorney is entitled to be Court notes that the services of respondent de Dumo were engaged
paid his just fees. The attorney should be protected against any by the complainant on a number of cases and that these were on
attempt on the part of his client to escape payment of his just differing stages of completion. Respondent was not entitled to hold
on to the entire amount of P12,000.00 collected by him until all his fees sixty percent (60%) or more than half of the total amount due
fees for the other cases had also been paid and received by him. from defendant debtors; indeed, he was appropriating for himself
There was not enough evidence in the record to show how much more than what he was, according to him, to turn over to his client.
money, if any, respondent had in fact previously (i.e., other than the
P12,000.00 from Mañosca) collected for and turned over to We believe and so hold that the contingent fee here claimed was,
complainant (thereby waiving his lien thereon) without deducting under the
therefrom his claimed contingent fees in respect of such collections.
facts obtaining in this case, grossly excessive and unconscionable.
The relationship of attorney and client has always been rightly
regarded as one of special trust and confidence. An attorney must The complainant was an old and sickly woman and, in respondent's
exercise the utmost good faith and fairness in all his relationships own words, "penniless." She was at the time she filed her complaint
vis-a-vis his client. Respondent fell far short of this standard when he in 1976, already seventy-six (76) years old. In her circumstances,
failed to render an accounting for the amount actually received by and given her understandable desire to realize upon debts owed to
him and when he refused to turn over any portion of such amount her before death overtook her, she would easily succumb to the
received by him on behalf of his client upon the pretext that his demands of respondent attorney regarding his attorney's fees. It
attorney's fees had not all been paid. Respondent had in fact placed must be stressed that the mere fact that an agreement had been
his private and personal interest above that of his client. reached between attorney and client fixing the amount of the
Respondent's act constitutes a breach of his lawyer's oath and a attorney's fees, does not insulate such agreement from review and
mere reprimand is not an adequate sanction. modification by the Court where the fees clearly appear to be
excessive or unreasonable.
Respondent claimed that he charged complainant, his client, a
contingent fee of fifty percent (50%) of the amount collected by him, This Court has power to guard a client, especially an aged and
plus interest and whatever attorney's fees may be awarded by the necessitous client, against such a contract. We hold that on a
trial court chargeable to the other party. In this jurisdiction, contingent quantum meruit basis, no circumstances of special difficulty
fees are not per se prohibited by law. 8 But when it is shown that a attending the collection cases having been shown by respondent,
contract for a contingent fee are obtained by undue influence respondent attorney's fees should be reduced from sixty percent
exercised by the attorney upon his client or by any fraud or (60%) to ten percent (15%) of the total amount (including attorney's
imposition, or that the compensation is clearly excessive, the Court fees stipulated as chargeable to the debtors) collected by him on
must and will protect the aggrieved party. behalf of his client
Respondent attorney claimed as his contingent fee the following: Suspended for 6 months.