Likong Lim Digest

39: Cerina B. Likong vs. Atty. Alexander H. Lim, A.C. No. 3149, August 1, 1994 !a"ts: #$is is a dis%arment "ase &ailed %y Cerina against Atty Lim. '$at $a((ened )as "om(lainant Cerina B. Likong exe"uted a (romissory note and a deed o& assignment assigning to *eesnell L. +a( (ension "$e"ks )$i"$ s$e regularly re"eives &rom t$e - government as a )ido) o& a - (ensioner. #$e deed o& assignment states t$at t$e same s$all %e irrevo"a%le until $er loan is &ully (aid. Cerina like)ise exe"uted a s(e"ial (o)er o& attorney aut$oriing +a( to get $er (ension "$e"ks &rom t$e (ost o/"e. A%out t$ree mont$s a&ter t$e exe"ution o& t$e -0A, Cerina in&ormed t$e (ost o/"e t$at s$e )as revoking t$e -0A. +a( led a "om(laint &or in2un"tion against Cerina. es(ondent Alexander H. Lim a((eared as "ounsel &or +a( )$ile Attys. oland B. nting and 5ri"o B. Aumentado a((eared &or Cerina. Cerina and +a( led a 2oint motion, )$i"$ does not %ear t$e signatures o& Cerina6s "ounsel, to allo) +a( to )it$dra) t$e (ension "$e"ks. #$ey also entered into a "om(romise agreement )it$out t$e (arti"i(ation o& Cerina6s "ounsel. n t$e "om(romise "om(romise agreement, it )as stated t$at "om(lainant Cerina admitted an o%ligation to +a( and t$at t$ey agreed t$at t$e amount )ould %e (aid in mont$ly installments. #$e "om(romise agreement (re(ared %y res(ondent in"reased Cerina7s de%t to +a( and t$e terms "ontained t$erein are grossly (re2udi"ial to Cerina. Contention o& 0etitioner: Cerina led a "om(laint &or dis%arment, alleging t$at in all t$e motions, s$e )as (revented &rom seeking assistan"e, advi"e and signature o& any o& $er t)o la)yers as s$e )as advised %y Atty. Lim t$at it )as not ne"essary &or $er to "onsult $er la)yers under t$e (retense t$at: 8a t$is "ould only 2eo(ardie t$e settlement 8% s$e )ould only %e in"urring enormous ex(ense i& s$e "onsulted a ne) la)yer 8" res(ondent )as assisting $er any)ay 8d s$e $ad not$ing to )orry a%out t$e do"uments &oisted u(on $er to sign 8e "om(lainant need not "ome to "ourt a&ter)ards to save $er time and in any event res(ondent already took "are o&  everyt$ing. -$e alleged t$at s$e )as (revented &rom ex$i%iting &ully $er "ase %y means o& &raud, de"e(tion and some ot$er &orm o& menda"ity (ra"ti"ed on $er %y Atty. Lim )$o, &raudulently or )it$out aut$ority, assumed to re(resent "om(lainant and "onnived in $er de&eat. Contention o& es(ondent: Atty. Lim argued t$at Cerina7s "ounsel $ad a%andoned $er and it )as u(on $er re;uest t$at $e made t$e "om(romise agreement. Atty. Lim states t$at $e rst instru"ted Cerina to noti&y $er la)yers %ut )as in&ormed t$at $er la)yer $ad a%andoned $er sin"e s$e "ould not (ay $is attorney6s &ees. --5: '1, ule ?.>@ and ule 1.>3 o& t$e Code o& 0ro&essioal es(onsi%ility. A#<: Atty. Lim (revented Cerina &rom in&orming $er la)yers %y giving $er t$e reasons enumerated in t$e "om(laint. #$ere is no s$o)ing t$at Atty. Lim even tried to in&orm o((osing "ounsel o& t$e "om(romise agreement. Neit$er is t$ere any s$o)ing t$at Atty. Lim in&ormed t$e trial "ourt o& t$e alleged a%andonment o& Cerina %y $er "ounsel. nstead, even assuming t$at s$e )as really a%andoned %y $er

"ounsel, Atty. Lim sa) an o((ortunity to take advantage o& t$e situation, and t$e result )as t$e exe"ution o& t$e "om(romise agreement )$i"$ is grossly and (atently disadvantageous and (re2udi"ial to Cerina. ndou%tedly, Atty. Lim6s "ondu"t is un%e"oming a mem%er o& t$e legal (ro&ession. 0enalty: Atty. Lim )as sus(ended &rom t$e (ra"ti"e o& la) &or 1 year. e"ommendation o& B0 CB= and B<*: not s(e"i"ally mentioned in t$e "ase