37 Cueto vs Jimenez

8/10/2019 37 Cueto vs Jimenez

1/4

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

THIRD DIVISION

A.C. No. 5798 January 20, 2005

ALEX B. CUETO, complainant,vs.ATTY. JOSE B. JIMENEZ, JR.,respondent.

R E S O L U T I O N

CORONA, J .:

Before us is a complaint1for disciplinary action against Atty. Jose Jimenez, Jr. filed by Engr. Alex B.Cueto with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), Commission on Bar Discipline.

Engr. Alex Cueto alleged that sometime in October 1999 he engaged the services of respondent asnotary public, the latter being the father of the owner of the building subject of the Construction

Agreement2to be notarized. He was then accompanied by a certain Val Rivera, the buildingadministrator of respondents son Jose Jimenez III.

After notarizing the agreement, respondent demanded P50,000 as notarial fee. Despite his surpriseas to the cost of the notarial service, complainant informed respondent that he only had P30,000 incash. Respondent persuaded complainant to pay the P30,000 and to issue a check for theremaining P20,000. Being unfamiliar with the cost of notarial services, complainant paid all his cas h3and issued a Far East Bank check dated December 28, 1999 for the balance. 1vvphi1.nt

Before the maturity date of the check, complainant requested respondent not to deposit the same forlack of sufficient funds. He also informed respondent that the latters son Jose Jimenez III had notyet paid his services as general contractor. Still, respondent deposited the check which wasconsequently dishonored for insufficient funds. Meanwhile, the P2,500,000 check issued byrespondents son to complainant as initial payment pursuant to the Construction Agreement wasitself dishonored for having been drawn against a closed account.

Subsequently, Atty. Jimenez lodged a complaint for violation of BP 22 against Cueto before the CityProsecutors Office in Angeles City. The criminal case was tried in the Metropolitan Trial Court of

Angeles City, Branch I.

In the meantime, Cueto filed his own administrative complaint against Jimenez on November 16,

2001. He alleged that Jimenez violated the Code of Professional Responsibility and Canons ofProfessional Ethics when he filed the criminal case against Cueto so he could collect the balance ofhis notarial fee.

Pursuant to Rule 139-B, Section 6 of the Rules of Court, respondent Jimenez was required toanswer the complaint filed against him.4Despite notice, however, respondent failed to file his answerand to appear before the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline. After hearing the case ex-parte, thecase was deemed submitted for resolution.5
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jan2005/ac_5798_2005.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jan2005/ac_5798_2005.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jan2005/ac_5798_2005.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jan2005/ac_5798_2005.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jan2005/ac_5798_2005.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jan2005/ac_5798_2005.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jan2005/ac_5798_2005.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jan2005/ac_5798_2005.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jan2005/ac_5798_2005.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jan2005/ac_5798_2005.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jan2005/ac_5798_2005.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jan2005/ac_5798_2005.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jan2005/ac_5798_2005.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jan2005/ac_5798_2005.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jan2005/ac_5798_2005.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jan2005/ac_5798_2005.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jan2005/ac_5798_2005.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jan2005/ac_5798_2005.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jan2005/ac_5798_2005.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jan2005/ac_5798_2005.html#fnt1


2/4

In its report6dated April 21, 2002, the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline found respondent guilty ofviolating Canon 20, Rule 20.4 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and recommended that

Atty. Jose B. Jimenez, Jr. be reprimanded.

On June 29, 2002, the Board of Governors passed a resolution 7adopting and approving the reportand recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner:8

RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED, the Report andRecommendation of the Investigating Commissioner of the above-entitled case, herein made part ofthis Resolution/Decision as Annex "A"; and, finding the recommendation fully supported by theevidence on record and the applicable laws and rules, and in view of respondents violation of Canon20, Rule 20.4 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, respondent is hereby reprimanded.

Complainants claim that respondents P50,000 notarial fee was exorbitant is debatable. Asconfirmed by the IBP, it is a recognized legal practice in real estate transactions and constructionprojects to base the amount of notarial fees on the contract price. Based on the amount demandedby respondent, the fee represented only 1% of the contract price of P5,000,000. It cannot be saidtherefore that respondent notary demanded more than a reasonable recompense for his service.

We are also convinced that the two contracting parties implicitly agreed on the cost of Jimenezsnotarial service. It was Cuetos responsibility to first inquire how much he was going to be chargedfor notarization. And once informed, he was free to accept or reject it, or negotiate for a loweramount. In this case, complainants concern that the other party to the construction agreement wasthe son of respondent notary and that his non-availment of respondents service might jeopardizethe agreement, was purely speculative. There was no compulsion to avail of respondents service. l^vvphi1.netMoreover, his failure to negotiate the amount of the fee was an implicit acquiescence to the terms ofthe notarial service. His subsequent act of paying in cash and in check all the more proved it.

However, we agree with the IBP that respondents conduct in filing a criminal case for violation of BP22 against complainant (when the check representing the P20,000 balance was dishonored forinsufficient funds) was highly improper.

Canon 20, Rule 20.4 of the Code of Professional Responsibility mandates that "[a] lawyer shall avoidcontroversies with clients concerning his compensation and shall resort to judicial action only toprevent imposition, injustice or fraud." Likewise, in Canon 14 of the Canons of Professional Ethics itstates that, "[c]ontroversies with clients concerning compensation are to be avoided by the lawyer sofar as shall be compatible with his self-respect and with his right to receive reasonable recompensefor his service; and lawsuits with the clients should be resorted to only to prevent injustice, impositionor fraud."1a\^/phi1.net

There was clearly no imposition, injustice or fraud obtaining in this case to justify the legal actiontaken by respondent. As borne out by the records, complainant Cueto had already paid more thanhalf of respondents fee. To resort toa suit to recover the balance reveals a certain kind of shameful

conduct and inconsiderate behavior that clearly undermines the tenet embodied in Canon 15 that"[A] lawyer should observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all his dealings and transactions with hisclient." And what can we say about the failure of respondents son Jose III to pay his own obligationto complainant Cueto? It in all probability explains why Cueto ran short of funds. Respondenttherefore should have been more tolerant of the delay incurred by complainant Cueto.

We cannot overstress the duty of a lawyer to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession.9He can do this by faithfully performing his duties to society, to the bar, to the courts and to his
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jan2005/ac_5798_2005.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jan2005/ac_5798_2005.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jan2005/ac_5798_2005.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jan2005/ac_5798_2005.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jan2005/ac_5798_2005.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jan2005/ac_5798_2005.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jan2005/ac_5798_2005.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jan2005/ac_5798_2005.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jan2005/ac_5798_2005.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jan2005/ac_5798_2005.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jan2005/ac_5798_2005.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jan2005/ac_5798_2005.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jan2005/ac_5798_2005.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jan2005/ac_5798_2005.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jan2005/ac_5798_2005.html#fnt6


3/4

clients. He should always remind himself that the legal profession is imbued with public service.Remuneration is a mere incident.

Although we acknowledge that every lawyer must be paid what is due to him, he must never resortto judicial action to recover his fees, in a manner that detracts from the dignity of the profession.

WHEREFORE, Atty. Jose Jimenez, Jr. is hereby SEVERELY REPRIMANDED for violating Canon20, Rule 20.4 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

SO ORDERED.

Panganiban, (Chairman), Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio-Morales, and Garcia, JJ., concur.

Footnotes

1Records, pp. 1-3.

2Id.at 9-15.

3Id.at 4.

4Id.at 5.

5Id.at 7.

6Id.at 18-20.

7

Id.at 17.8Commissioner Dennis B. Funa.

9Reyes v. Javier, 426 Phil. 243 (2002).

The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jan2005/ac_5798_2005.html#rnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jan2005/ac_5798_2005.html#rnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jan2005/ac_5798_2005.html#rnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jan2005/ac_5798_2005.html#rnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jan2005/ac_5798_2005.html#rnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jan2005/ac_5798_2005.html#rnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jan2005/ac_5798_2005.html#rnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jan2005/ac_5798_2005.html#rnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jan2005/ac_5798_2005.html#rnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jan2005/ac_5798_2005.html#rnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jan2005/ac_5798_2005.html#rnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jan2005/ac_5798_2005.html#rnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jan2005/ac_5798_2005.html#rnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jan2005/ac_5798_2005.html#rnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jan2005/ac_5798_2005.html#rnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jan2005/ac_5798_2005.html#rnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jan2005/ac_5798_2005.html#rnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jan2005/ac_5798_2005.html#rnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jan2005/ac_5798_2005.html#rnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jan2005/ac_5798_2005.html#rnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jan2005/ac_5798_2005.html#rnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jan2005/ac_5798_2005.html#rnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jan2005/ac_5798_2005.html#rnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jan2005/ac_5798_2005.html#rnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jan2005/ac_5798_2005.html#rnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jan2005/ac_5798_2005.html#rnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jan2005/ac_5798_2005.html#rnt1


4/4

Legal EthicsCanon 20Duty to Avoid Controversies Involving Lawyers Fees

Engineer Alex Cueto, for P5,000,000.00, was contracted to build a building for Jose Jimenez III. Cuetodecided to have the contractbe notarized and he chose Atty. Jose Jimenez, Jr., father of Jimenez III, tonotarize said contract. Before the notarization, Cueto did not ask how much will Atty. Jimenez be

charging. So he was surprise when after the notarization, he was being asked to pay P50,000.00. He paid

the P30,000.00 and he issued a check worth P20,000.00 to Atty. Jimenez.

Later, Cueto advised Atty. Jimenez not to encash the check yet because he has insufficient funds.

Notwithstanding, Atty. Jimenez still tried to encash the check hence it was dishonored. Atty. Jimenez thenfiled a criminal suit against Cueto.

ISSUE:Whether or not what Atty. Jimenez, Jr. did is proper.

HELD: No. He violated Canon 20 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which states: [a] lawyer

shall avoid controversies with clients concerning his compensation and shall resort to judicial action onlyto prevent imposition, injustice or fraud. There was no intention on the part of Cueto to commit fraud

against Jimenez as he paid the P30k downpayment. Its just that, ironically, the reason why Cueto doesnot have sufficient fund in his account was that Jimenez III has failed to pay Cuetos professional servicesin the building project.

Documents

37 Cueto vs Jimenez