FIRST DIVISION
[A.C. No. 12082. March 6, 2019.][Formerly CBD Case No. 13-3805]
ADORACION MERCADO, complainant, vs.ATTY. SHERDALE M. VALDEZ, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated March 6, 2019which reads as follows:
"A.C. No. 12082 [Formerly CBD Case No. 13-3805] (ADORACION MERCADO, Complainant, v. ATTY. SHERDALE M. VALDEZ, Respondent.) — This administrative case stemmed from a disbarment complaint dated May 15, 2013 1 filed by complainant Adoracion Mercado against respondent Atty. Sherdale M. Valdez before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP).
Antecedents
We cull the relevant factual antecedents from the Report and Recommendation 2 of the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline:
On January 3, 2000, complainant and her children Jocelyn and Michael Mercado, and two (2) others, namely, Dominador Mercado, Jr. and Marina Mercado engaged the services of respondent for the purpose of filing an action for judicial partition against Spouses Leonora Mercado Jarin and Alejandro Jarin for an agreed acceptance fee of P37,500.00. A partial payment of 15,000.00 was made upon engagement until it has been fully paid.
xxx xxx xxx
After nine (9) years of litigation, the parties in said civil case entered into a Compromise Agreement on December 18, 2009 and the Court approved said Compromise Agreement and became the basis of the Decision dated December 21, [2]009, the dispositive portion of which reads:
1. x x x for they assented to the partition of the properties in the following manners, (sic) to wit:
The property with an area of 925.20 sq. meters located in Brgy. Tulay, Bato, Biñan, Laguna covered by TCT No. (T-26101) T-8763 and evidence[d] by Tax Dec. No. 02094 with improvement declared under TD No. 020925 shall pertain to the FIRST PARTY, plaintiffs Adoracion Mercado and her children, Jocelyn and Michael Mercado and such portion/share that pertains to the intervenor, Laarni Mercado under the law, the former being the surviving spouse and legitimate children and [the] latter being an illegitimate child of the late Ernesto Mercado. The net proceeds of the sale shall be divided into seven (7) parts, two (2) each for Adoracion, Jocelyn and Michael and one (1) to Laarni Mercado. It is further agreed that this parcel of land though allocated as such will be sold and that part of the proceeds, in the amount of Two Million Pesos (2,000,000.00) will be delivered to the defendants-spouses Leonora Mercado and Alejandro Jarin, the SECOND PARTY, in such amount that the plaintiffs mentioned herein (Adoracion, Jocelyn, Michael) will determine, which should not be lower than Fifteen Million Pesos (P15,000,000.00). In the event that the purchase price be sold higher than the ceiling amount (P15M), the share pertaining to the spouses Jarin will be the same. CAIHTE
In the meantime, effective upon the signing of the Compromise Agreement, the fruits arising from rentals over the said property covered by TCT # (26101) T-8763 shall pertain to Adoracion Mercado, who shall collect the rentals of the said property. The defendants upon the approval of this Compromise Agreement, shall deliver the original owner's copy of TCT # (26101) T-8763 to Adoracion Mercado.
xxx xxx xxx
2. That the respective parties shall be responsible in the payment of the estate taxes that pertain to the properties allotted to them to the required taxes due thereon, if any, for purposes of transfer in their individual names, except the property covered by TCT No. 19887 for which the estate tax be divided equally among the parties entitled thereto pursuant to this agreement, and finally, that they will be responsible to their respective counsels in accordance with their agreement as and by way of attorney's fees.
The parties waive all other claims and counterclaims against each other.
The Court finds the above Compromise Agreement not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy.
WHEREFORE, the above Compromise Agreement is hereby APPROVED and judgment is hereby rendered in accordance therewith. Consequently, the parties are hereby enjoined to strictly comply with the terms and conditions of the above Compromise Agreement.
SO ORDERED."
The property described as TCT # (26101) T-8763 containing an area of 925.20 square meters was adjudicated by the Court in favor of herein complainant in said civil case and is hereinafter referred to as "SUBJECT PROPERTY."
On December 18, 2009, complainant executed an Authority to Sell exclusively granting the respondent the authority to sell the SUBJECT PROPERTY. Incorporated therein is a provision which reads in part:
"You are authorized to bind us by any contract to put into effect and the eventual satisfaction and segregation of the agreed attorney's fee of 20%. x x x"
On December 22, 2009, respondent executed a Memorandum of Agreement (Acknowledgement) wherein respondent has acknowledged possession of the original copy of the title to SUBJECT PROPERTY. In a later document dated February 1, 2010, respondent also admitted that he has in his possession the original copy of the title to the Subject Property.
On January 16, 2013, a Deed of Conditional Sale was executed by complainant and her children, herein represented by respondent, in favor of Aida C. Victoriano over the SUBJECT PROPERTY in the amount of P16,000,000.00. This transaction did not materialize.
On January 21, 2013, respondent sent a letter with an attached Special Power of Attorney (SPA) to complainant for the latter and her children to sign said document authorizing herein respondent to sell the SUBJECT PROPERTY. Complainant however did not sign the said SPA.
On April 25, 2013, respondent, representing complainant and her children and the defendants in said civil case, filed a Joint Motion to Surrender or Issue Substitute Title.
On April 26, 2013, respondent filed before the trial court, an "Urgent Motion to Annotate Attorney's Lien with Motion to Segregate the Twenty (20%) Percent Portion Pursuant to the Agreed Attorney's Fee.["]
In an Order dated April 26, 2013, the trial court granted respondent's Joint Motion to Surrender or Issue Substitute Title, directing Mr. Benito D. Gonzales to surrender the original duplicate of copy of TCT No. (26101) T-8763 within three (3) days from receipt of the order, or in the event that Mr. Gonzales, Jr. fails to surrender the title, the Office of the Register of Deeds of Calamba is hereby ordered to annul the outstanding owner's duplicate certificate and issue a new certificate of title.
In a Manifestation with Opposition to Counsel's Urgent Motion to Annotate Attorney's Lien with Motion to Segregate the Twenty (20%) Percent Portion Pursuant to the Agreed Attorney's Fee dated May 12, 2013, complainant opposed respondent's attorney's lien and prayed for the following: DETACa
a. ORDERING the Register of Deeds of Calamba to deliver the new owner's duplicate copy of Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. (26101) T-9763 x x x.
b. ORDERING counsel, Atty. Sherdale M. Valdez, to return all the monies he collected on a monthly basis directly from Lijan Enterprises, current lessor of the subject property in this case pertaining to plaintiff in the aggregate amount of P126,000.00, counsel's collection of which is unauthorized having no basis in law and in fact;
It is likewise prayed upon this Honorable Court that no more pleadings and other legal processes that will be initiated and/or filed by Atty. Sherdale M. Valdez in behalf/representation of plaintiffs be considered and given due course as the latter have completely lost their faith, trust and confidence in the said counsel."
Despite the absence of title to the SUBJECT PROPERTY, complainant was able to sell the SUBJECT PROPERTY to a certain Mr. Carlo Garcia for P9,000,000.00, an amount much lower than which is stated as the minimum selling price in the Compromise Agreement. Complainant also turned over the amount of P2,000,000.00 to the defendants in the civil case, in compliance with the Decision of the trial court.
On May 16, 2013, complainant filed this administrative complaint against respondent for disbarment.
xxx xxx xxx
In her Complaint and Verified Position Paper, complainant seeks the disbarment of the respondent for violation of Rule 1.01 of Canon 1; Canon 15, Canon 16, Canon 17, and Canon 20 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Complainant assailed respondent's 20% attorney's fees as stated in the Authority to Sell as excessive; that the respondent's attorney's fees should be based on quantum meruit and that respondent has already been fully paid and satisfied in the form of acceptance fees in the amount of P37,000.00; P1,500.00 per appearance; and, a total of P126,000.00 chargeable to respondent's 20% attorney's fees; that respondent's act of incorporated (sic) his attorney's fees in the Authority to Sell is an obvious deception and trickery; that even assuming that the Authority to Sell is valid, the receipt by respondent of P3,000 per month from December 2009 until March 2013 or a total of P126,000.00 from complainant's tenant, Lijan Enterprises has already fully satisfied respondent's 20% attorney's fees; that the actuations of respondent in withholding the title of the property subject matter of the civil case was a violation of the Decision based on compromise agreement; that respondent entered into a sales transaction without the consent and knowledge of the complainant; that the act of filing by respondent of a Joint Motion to Surrender or Issue Substitute Title by respondent was without the consent and knowledge of complainant. Complainants prays for the disbarment of herein respondent.
xxx xxx xxx
In his Answer and Position Paper, respondent denied committing acts in violation of the Rules, the attorney's oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility and that complainant has no cause of action against him. Respondent asserted that he is entitled to attorney's fees equivalent to 20% which is indicated in the Complaint filed before the Court, confirmed in the Authority to Sell signed by complainant, the Compromise Agreement and the Decision based on the Compromise Agreement. Complainant further maintained that the issue of his entitlement to the 20% has already been resolved by the trial court in his favor, although limited only to the share of Adoracion Mercado. Respondent claimed that on April 25, 2013, complainant sold the property to Mr. Carlo Garcia for P9 Million and was paid a downpayment of P4.5 Million and in fact, complainant paid the defendants in the civil case the amount of P2,000,000.00 in satisfaction of the Decision based on the compromise agreement; and that complainant filed this disbarment complaint to obviate payment of complainant's obligation to pay respondent his 20% attorney's fees. Respondent maintains that he handled the case with zeal until the parties agreed to finally settle the case in a compromise agreement approved by the Court. That respondent's attorney's fees is expressly indicated in [the] Complaint filed in court and is commensurate with his professional services rendered in the nine (9) years that he had been handling the case. Respondent prays for the dismissal of the complaint for lack of merit. 3
Findings and Recommendation of the IBP
After proceedings before the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline, Commissioner Jose Villanueva Cabrera made the following observations and recommended the dismissal of the administrative complaint: aDSIHc
There is no hard and fast rule in the determination of whether lawyer's fees are fair and reasonable. Rule 20.1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility spells out the considerations in determining legal professional fees. Unless the agreed attorney's fees is clearly unconscionable and revolting to the conscience or in cases of statutory limitations, this Commission will not interfere with what has been stipulated or agreed upon by the lawyer and the client or that which has been fixed or resolved by the proper court.
A careful examination of the records readily shows that the factual and legal issues raised in the Complaint and the Answer and the respective pleadings and position papers are matters within the competence, authority and jurisdiction of the trial court in the civil case. In an Order dated 16 August 2013, the Court has essentially resolved the matters complained of, and all incidents in the civil case, namely: a) the validity of the Authority to Sell wherein the 20% attorney's fees is therein incorporated; b) Respondent's Urgent Motion to Annotate Attorney's Lien with Motion to Segregate the Twenty (20%) Percent Portion Pursuant to the Agreed Attorney's Fees and the Opposition filed thereto; c) the Motion to Cite Respondent in Contempt of Court for withholding title to the Subject Property; and d) compliance and enforcement of the Decision based on the compromise agreement.
In resolving respondent's entitlement to the 20% attorney's fees, the trial court ruled:
"Wherefore, premises considered, let the Authority to Sell dated December 18, 2009, relative to the Compromise Agreement dated December 21, 2009 be complied with by the parties.
1. ORDERING Counsel Atty. Sherdale M. Valdez to turn over and deliver the new owner's duplicate copy of Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. (26101) T-8763 now in his possession to Plaintiffs Adoracion Mercado, Jocelyn Mercado and Michael Mercado pursuant to and in satisfaction of the Decision of this Court;
2. ORDERING Plaintiff Adoracion Mercado only, to comply with the Authority to Sell dated December 18, 2009 she granted to Counsel Atty. Sherdale M. Valdez, that in case of sale of subject property with an area of 925.20 sq. meters covered by TCT No. (26101) T-8763, located in Barangay Tulay Bato, Biñan, pay the 20% of the 264.34 sq. meters (representing the share of Adoracion Mercado only) of the subject property with an area of 925.20 in sq. meters, located in Barangay Tulay Bato, Biñan, Laguna;
3. In case plaintiff Adoracion Mercado is unable to pay as directed in the preceding paragraph (No. 2) this will justify the annotation of the lien and the right to have it annotated in the title;
4. DENYING the Plaintiff's Motion to Cite counsel Atty. Sherdale M. Valdez in Contempt of Court."
Conformably with the foregoing Order, the Court has upheld the validity of the assailed Authority to Sell and has fixed respondent's 20% attorney's fees. x x x
A careful examination of the records failed to enable us to identify and isolate the complained unethical acts of respondent, independently of the acts complained of by the complainant before the trial court against the respondent in the civil case and for which the trial court has already been resolved the same issues brought before this Commission. x x x
RECOMMENDATION
WHEREFORE, premises considered, finding no factual and legal basis to hold respondent liable for any violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility, the Lawyer's Oath and the pertinent provisions of the Rules of Court, it is recommended that the administrative case against respondent Atty. Sherdale M. Valdez be DISMISSED for the lack of merit. 4
The IBP Board of Governors issued Resolution No. XXI-2014-834 5 on October 11, 2014 which reads:
RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED, the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner in the above-entitled case, herein made part of this Resolution as Annex "A", and finding the recommendation to be fully supported by the evidence on record and applicable laws, and considering that the Complaint lacks merit, the case against Respondent is hereby DISMISSED.
The complainant filed a motion for reconsideration but was denied by the IBP Board of Governors in its Resolution No. XXII-2017-1257 dated April 20, 2017. 6
Our Ruling
We DISMISS the administrative complaint. ETHIDa
It is settled that in administrative proceedings against lawyers, the Court will exercise its disciplinary power only if administrative guilt was proven by substantial evidence. Substantial evidence is defined as such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. If the complainant fails to meet the required standard or to establish his/her case by clear, convincing, and satisfactory evidence, the Court shall not hesitate to dismiss any disbarment proceedings against any lawyer. After all, the power to disbar must be exercised with great caution, and may be imposed only in a clear case of misconduct that seriously affects the standing and character of the lawyer as an officer of the Court and as a member of the bar. 7
The present administrative charges essentially emanate from a dispute between a lawyer and his client involving the reasonableness of the 20% attorney's fees which was reduced into writing in an Authority to Sell.
In similar controversies, the Court looks in large measure at the reasonableness of the stipulated fee under the circumstances of each case. 8 Section 24, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court explicitly provides:
Section 24. Compensation of attorneys; agreement as to fees. — An attorney shall be entitled to have and recover from his client no more than a reasonable compensation for his services, with a view to the importance of the subject matter of the controversy, the extent of the services rendered, and the professional standing of the attorney. No court shall be bound by the opinion of attorneys as expert witnesses as to the proper compensation, but may disregard such testimony and base its conclusion on its own professional knowledge. A written contract for services shall control the amount to be paid therefor unless found by the court to be unconscionable or unreasonable. (Emphasis ours)
As aptly observed by the Investigating Commissioner, the trial court already fixed and upheld the 20% attorney's fees in its Order dated August 16, 2013. 9 Evidently, the trial court did not find the agreed fees as unconscionable or unreasonable compensation for services rendered by the respondent, who handled the complainant's civil case for nine (9) years before securing a judgment based on a compromise agreement. Considering that the present administrative case is not the proper venue to review the trial court's ruling on this matter, the Court will not disturb the amount of attorney's fees. It is worthy of note as well that the trial court did not see any reason to cite the respondent in contempt for retaining the title to the subject property. In sum, the complaint has no legal or factual leg to stand on.
WHEREFORE, the Court resolves to NOTE and ADOPT the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations of the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines; and to DISMISS the administrative complaint against Atty. Sherdale M. Valdez for lack of merit.
The Court hereby declares this case CLOSED and TERMINATED.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 3-17.
2.Id. at 214-225.
3.Id. at 214-221.
4.Id. at 221-224.
5.Id. at 213.
6.Id. at 244.
7.Jimenez v. Jimenez, A.C. No. 6712, February 6, 2006, 481 SCRA 528, 533-534.
8.Spouses Jacinto v. Bangot, Jr., A.C. No. 8494, October 5, 2016, 804 SCRA 509.
9.Rollo, pp. 222-223.