Quilban, Romualdo Dalagan, Fortunato Ramirez, Amador Alarcon and Luis Agawan v. Atty.

Robinol
A.C. No. 2144 – April 10, 1989
Atty. Robinol v. Atty. Montemayor
A.C. No. 2180 - April 10, 1989
EN BANC

CANON
● Rule 16.03 - A lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of his client when due or upon demand. However,
he shall have a lien over the funds and may apply so much thereof as may be necessary to satisfy his lawful
fees and disbursements, giving notice promptly thereafter to his client. He shall also have a lien to the same
extent on all judgments and executions he has secured for his client as provided for in the Rules of Court.
RECIT SUMMARY
● Atty. Robinol was the counsel of Samahan, an organized group of squatters living on a land in QC, to
prosecute the appeal of their Civil Case before the CA for conveyance of property to them as it was previously
sold to their exclusion when said sale was supposed to be for their benefit. Rivera, the man who was sold the
property, paid P41k to Colegio de San Jose, original owner of the land.
● The CA rendered judgement in Samahan’s favor, overturning the CFI’s Decision and ordering Samahan to
pay Rivera the amount he paid for the land and other expenses before said land could be turned over to them.
In connection with this, Samahan pooled P75k from its members and gave it to Atty. Robinol for him to turn
over. However, they later found out he did not do so and had no excuse.
● Samahan agreed to terminate the services of Atty. Robinol, hiring Atty. Montemayor and informing Atty.
Robinol of their decision and demanded return of the money. They filed an Admin Complaint against Atty.
Robinol in connection with this Atty. Robinol contends that he is holding the money as a guaranty for
payment of his attorney fee, which was supposed to be a portion of land but now wants to be converted to its
monetary equivalent of P50k, and that he was also unjustly dismissed.
● The SolGen recommended suspension for failure to deliver the funds.
● The SC agreed with the SolGen in finding Atty. Robinol liable. He had no right to appropriate the money not
only because he is bound by a written agreement that stipulated a retainer fee (and not a contingent fee) but
also because under the circumstances, it was highly unjust for him to do so since his clients were just
squatters. He took advantage of their situation. There is also no basis to claim that since he was unjustly
dismissed by his clients he had the legal right to retain the money in his possession.
○ First, there was justifiable ground for his discharge because his clients had lost confidence in him for
he had engaged in tactics to the detriment of their interests, which he was duty-bound to protect.
○ Secondly, even if there were no valid ground, there is no legal right to retain his client's funds
intended for a specific purpose — the purchase of land. He stands obliged to return the money
immediately to their rightful owners.
● SC disbarred Atty. Robinol for having violated his lawyer's oath to delay no man for money, broken the
fiduciary relation between lawyer and client, and proven himself unworthy to continue in the practice of law.
PER CURIAM:
FACTS OF THE CASE
● Fr. Escaler, Colegio de San Jose’s (a Jesuit corporation) administrator, sold a piece of land to the QC
government but reserved an area as a possible development site where squatters have settled since 1960s.
o 1970, Cong. Taruc broached to Fr. Escaler the idea of donating or selling the land cheap to the
squatters so Cong. Taruc advised the squatters to organize and pick a leader to negotiate with Fr.
Escaler.
o Martin, chosen President of the squatter’s formed Samahan Pagkakaisa ng Barrio Bathala (Samahan),
was in charge of negotiating on their behalf the sale of the land to them but instead, he connived with
Rivera, a realtor, to obtain the sale to the exclusion of the other members.
o March 28 1971, the land was ultimately sold to Rivera for a total consideration of P41,961.65 and it
was evident that Fr. Escaler was made to believe that Rivera represented the squatters on the property.
 ● 1972, 32 heads of families of the Samahan filed a Civil Case for Rivera, et. al to be ordered to execute a deed
of conveyance in the Samahan’s favor after reimbursement by Samahan of the corresponding amount he paid
but the CFI-QC dismissed the case.
● To prosecute the appeal before the CA, the Samahan members hired Atty. Robinol as their counsel and he was
paid P2k as attorney’s fees.
o On March 10 1979, a written document confirmed that he was also to be given by the members a part
of the land equal to the portion that would pertain to each of them.
● Nov 14 1978, CA reversed the CFI decision.
o To raise the P41k ordered paid by the CA plus other expenses, 5 officers of the Samahan collected
P2.5k from each head of family and their treasurer issued the proper receipts prepared by Atty.
Robinol.
o Over several days in 1979, a total amount of P75k was turned over to Atty. Robinal.
o After almost a year, the 5 officers discovered that no payment had been made to Rivera and
that Atty. Robinal had no basis at all for his non-action.
● March 6 1980, 21 of the 32 plaintiffs arrived at a “first consensus” to change their counsel to Atty.
Montemayor, who agreed after being shown the document containing the Samahan member’s consensus to do
so.
o Upon Atty. Montemayor’s advice, the Samahan members informed Atty. Robinal of their decision to
terminate his services and demanded return of the P75k deposited with him; however, Atty. Robinal
disregarded the 2 letters sent to him.
● At a hearing, Atty. Robinol manifested that he had no objection to the appearance of and his substitution by
Atty. Montemayor.
● April 15 1980, Samahan officers filed an AC before SC requesting investigation of Atty. Robinol’s refusal to
return the P75k.
o In his defense, Atty. Robinol maintains, among others, that the agreement as to their attorney’s fees
was on a contingent basis (if he obtains a reversal of the CFI’s decision, they would give him a
portion of the land), he had the right to hold the money in his possession as guarantee for payment of
his attorney’s fees, he wants to convert his portion of land to its cash equivalent worth P50k, there
was no previous notice to him of his discharge and that Atty. Montemayor accepted the case w/o his
formal withdrawal and conformity.
● July 29 1980, Atty. Robinol filed his own Complaint for Disbarment against Atty. Montemayor for gross
unethical conduct because she readily accepted a case w/o Atty. Robinol’s formal withdrawal and conformity.
o Atty. Montemayor maintains that Atty. Robinol’s fees was a retainer fee as evidenced by a receipt
signed by Atty. Robinol (the contingent fee referred to was a result of Atty. Robinol’s insistent
demand after the CA Decision was final), he agreed to act as counsel to stop the growing belief of the
Samahan that most lawyers are unprincipled, and that there was substantial compliance with Sec. 26,
Rule 138 of the ROC (change of attorneys)
● SolGen recommended that Atty. Robinol be suspended for 3 months for refusing to deliver the funds in his
possession, with warning while Atty. Montemayor’s case be dismissed.
ISSUE/S & RATIO/S
(1) W/N Atty. Robinol is guilty of ethical infractions and grave misconduct? - YES
● He had no right to unilaterally appropriate his clients’ money not only because he is bound by a written
agreement but also because under the circumstances, it was highly unjust for him to do so.
○ After the Court of Appeals had rendered a Decision favorable to his clients and he had received the
latter's funds, suddenly, he had a change of mind and decided to convert the payment of his fees from
a portion of land equivalent to that of each of the plaintiffs to P50,000.00.
○ His clients were squatters who painstakingly raised their respective quotas of P2.5k per family with
which to pay for the land only to be deprived of the same by one who took advantage of them.
● No basis to claim that since he was unjustly dismissed by his clients he had the legal right to retain the money
in his possession.
 ○ First, there was justifiable ground for his discharge as counsel. His clients had lost confidence in him
for he had obviously engaged in dilatory tactics to the detriment of their interests, which he was duty-
bound to protect.
○ Secondly, even if there were no valid ground, he is bereft of any legal right to retain his client's funds
intended for a specific purpose — the purchase of land. He stands obliged to return the money
immediately to their rightful owners.
● Principle of quantum meruit1 is not applicable because there was an express contract as stipulated as his mode
of compensation.
● Complainant’s evidence that they gave P75k is more credible given the fact that in Atty. Robinol’s various
motions as their counsel, he made mention of 7 person who had not yet submitted their corresponding shares
but none of the 7 were the 5 officers, who he contends did not yet pay.
● He has not only violated his oath not to delay any man for money and to conduct himself with all good fidelity
to his clients. He has also brought the profession into disrepute with people who had reposed in it full faith
and reliance for the fulfillment of a life-time ambition to acquire a homelot they could call their own.
[irrelevant i guess but just in case)
Re: Atty. Montemayor
● He has not exposed himself to any plausible charge of unethical conduct in the exercise of his profession
when he agreed to serve as counsel for the plaintiffs..
● A majority of the families (21 plaintiffs) signed the first consensus to change lawyers.
● Atty. Robinol is estopped from questioning his discharge as counsel because he was informed in writing of the
termination of his services, he stated he had no objection to Atty. Montemayor’s appearance in a
Memorandum and during proceedings.

RULING

In so far as the complaint for disbarment filed by Atty. Robinol against Atty. Montemayor is concerned, therefore, we
find the same absolutely without merit.

ACCORDINGLY, 1) In Administrative Case No. 2144, Atty. Santiago R. Robinol is hereby DISBARRED for having
violated his lawyer's oath to delay no man for money, broken the fiduciary relation between lawyer and client, and
proven himself unworthy to continue in the practice of law. By reason of his unethical actuations, he is hereby
declared to have forfeited his rights to attorney's fees and is ordered to return the amount of P75,000.00 to the
plaintiffs in Civil Case No. Q-16433 through the complainant in the aforementioned Administrative Case.

2) Administrative Case No. 2180 against Atty. Anacleto R. Montemayor for disbarment is hereby DISMISSED for
lack of merit.

Let copies of this Resolution be entered in the respective personal records of Attys. Santiago R. Robinol and Anacleto
R. Montemayor.

This Resolution is immediately executory.

SO ORDERED.

Fernan, C.J., Narvasa, Melencio-Herrera, Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz, Paras, Feliciano, Gancayco, Padilla, Bidin,
Sarmiento, Cortes, Griño-Aquino, Medialdea and Regalado, JJ., concur.

1
The principle of quantum meruit applies if a lawyer is employed without a price agreed upon for his services in which case he
would be entitled to receive what he merits for his services, as much as he has earned.