Fernandez vs Bello G.R. No. L-14277 (Case Digest)

 

Fernandez vs Bello

G.R. No. L-14277

 

Principle:

            The opinion of a judge as to the capacity of a lawyer is not the basis of the right to a lawyer’s fee. It is the contract between the lawyer and client and the nature of the service rendered.

 

Facts:

            Timotea Perreyras, through Atty. Manuel L. Fernandez as her counsel, instituted Special Proceedings for her appointment as guardian over the persons and properties of her brothers, the minors Federico and Pedro Perreyras. Upon her appointment and upon her qualifying as such, she petitioned the court for authority to sell a nipa land owned in common with the wards for the purpose of paying outstanding obligations to Maximiano Umañgay. The request was granted.  The interest in the land of Ricardo Perreyras and Maximiano Umañgay were, in turn, sold for P200.00 to Atty. Manuel L. Fernandez.

            The court below found petitioner guilty of contempt of court on two grounds, the first is that he instituted the guardianship proceedings for the sole purpose of facilitating payment to him of the debts of the wards. Respondent judge justifies his order for the return of the P200.00 on the ground that petitioner is "below average standard of a lawyer."

 

Issue:

            Whether or not the through the petitioner’s mistake is sufficient ground for the non-payment of the fees he lawfully earned.

 

Ruling:

            NO. As a lawyer the petitioner is charged with the knowledge that the property and effects of the wards are under the control and supervision of the court, and that they could not be taken and expended without the latter’s permission, more especially so when the money taken was to pay the debt of the father of the wards. The reprimand is, therefore, fully justified. But the order for the refund of the P200.00 and the closing of the guardianship proceedings after such return, would deprive petitioner of the fees that he was entitled to receive from the father of the guardian and the wards, for services rendered in a civil case, which services are admitted to have been due from their father. While the reprimand is in order for petitioner’s mistake, the mistake is no sufficient ground for the non-payment of the fees he lawfully earned and which his client could to pay before his death. The duty of courts is not alone to see that lawyers act in a proper and lawful manner; it is also their duty to see that lawyers are paid their just and lawful fees. Certainly the court cannot deny them that right; there is no law that authorizes them to do so.