3/23/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 358

794 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Leal
*
A.C. No. 4215. May 21, 2001

FELICISIMO M. MONTANO, complainant, vs. INTEGRATED

BAR of the PHILIPPINES and Atty. JUAN S. DEALCA,
respondents.

Administrative Law; Attorneys; Code of Professional Responsibility; A

lawyer shall withdraw his services only for good cause and upon notice
appropriate in the circumstances; A lawyer shall avoid controversies with
clients concerning his compensation and shall resort to judicial action only
to prevent imposition, injustice or fraud.—We find Atty. Dealca’s conduct
unbecoming of a member of the legal profession. Under Canon 22 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility, a lawyer shall withdraw his services
only for good cause and upon notice appropriate in the circumstances.
Although he may withdraw his services when the client deliberately fails

_________________

* FIRST DIVISION.

2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Montano vs. Integrated Bar of the Philippines

to pay the fees for the services, under the circumstances of the present case,
Atty. Dealca’s withdrawal was unjustified as complainant did not
deliberately fail to pay him the attorney’s fees. In fact, complainant exerted
honest efforts to fulfill his obligation. Respondent’s contemptuous conduct
does not speak well of a member of the bar considering that the amount
owing to him was only P3,500.00. Rule 20.4 of Canon 20, mandates that a
lawyer shall avoid controversies with clients concerning his compensation
and shall resort to judicial action only to prevent imposition, injustice or

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001710705bf9267cb25f5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/10
3/23/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 358

fraud. Sadly, for not so large a sum owed to him by complainant, respondent
lawyer failed to act in accordance with the demands of the Code.
Same; Same; Same; Disbarment; Only in a clear case of misconduct
that seriously affects the standing and character of the lawyer as an officer
of the Court and member of the bar will disbarment be imposed as a
penalty.—The Court, however, does not agree with complainant’s
contention that the maximum penalty of disbarment should be imposed on
respondent lawyer. The power to disbar must be exercised with great
caution. Only in a clear case of misconduct that seriously affects the
standing and character of the lawyer as an officer of the Court and member
of the bar will disbarment be imposed as a penalty. It should never be
decreed where a lesser penalty, such as temporary suspension, would
accomplish the end desired. In the present case, reprimand is deemed
sufficient.

ADMINISTRATIVE MATTER in the Supreme Court. Misconduct.

The facts are stated in the resolution of the Court.

RESOLUTION

KAPUNAN, J.:

In a verified complaint filed before this Court on March 9, 1994,

complainant Felicisimo M. Montano charged Atty. Juan Dealca with
misconduct and prays that 1 he be “sternly dealt with
administratively.” The complaint is summarized as follows:

1. On November 14, 1992, the complainant hired the services

of Atty. Juan S. Dealca as his counsel in collaboration with
Atty. Ronando L. Gerona in a case pending before the Court
of Appeals

________________

1Rollo, pp. 1-3.

VOL. 358, MAY 21, 2001 3

Montano vs. Integrated Bar of the Philippines

docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 37467 wherein the

complainant was the plaintiff-appellant.
2. The parties agreed upon attorney’s fees in the amount of
P15,000.00, fifty percent (50%) of which was payable upon
acceptance of the case and the remaining balance upon the
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001710705bf9267cb25f5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/10
3/23/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 358

termination of the case. Accordingly, complainant paid

respondent the amount of P7,500.00 representing 50% of
the attorney’s fee.
3. Thereafter, even before respondent counsel had prepared
the appellant’s brief and contrary to their agreement that the
remaining balance be payable after the termination of the
case, Atty. Dealca demanded an additional payment from
complainant. Complainant obliged by paying the amount of
P4,000.00.
4. Prior to the filing of the appellant’s brief, respondent
counsel again demanded payment of the remaining balance
of P3,500.00. When complainant was unable to do so,
respondent lawyer withdrew his appearance as
complainant’s counsel without his prior knowledge and/or
conformity. Returning the case folder to the complainant,
respondent
2
counsel attached a Note dated February 28,
1993, stating:

28 February 1994
Pepe and Del Montano,
For breaking your promise, since you do not want to fulfill
your end of the bargain, here’s your reward: Henceforth, you
lawyer for yourselves. Here are your papers.
Johnny

Complainant claimed that such conduct by respondent counsel

exceeded the ethical standards of the law profession and prays that
the latter be sternly dealt with administratively. Complainant later on
filed motions praying for the imposition of the maximum penalty of
disbarment.
After respondent counsel filed his comment on the complaint, the
Court in the Resolution of August 1, 1994, referred the case to

__________________

2Id., at 4.

4 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Montano vs. Integrated Bar of the Philippines

the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report

and recommendation.
The Investigating Commissioner found respondent counsel guilty
of unprofessional conduct and recommended 3
that he be “severely
reprimanded.” However, in a Resolution by the IBP Board of
Governors on July 26, 1997, it was resolved that the penalty
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001710705bf9267cb25f5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/10
3/23/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 358

recommended by the Investigating Commissioner meted to

respondent be amended to “three (3) months suspension from the
practice of law for having been found guilty of misconduct, which
eroded the public confidence regarding his duty as a lawyer.”
Respondent counsel sought reconsideration of the
aforementioned resolution of the IBP, alleging that the latter
misapprehended the facts and that, in any case, he did not deserve
the penalty imposed. The true facts, according to him, are the
following:

1. Complainant is being represented by Atty. Ronando L.

Gerona in his case on appeal;
2. Due to the ailment of Atty. Gerona’s daughter, he could not
prepare and submit complainant’s appellant’s brief on time;
3. Complainant went to the respondent to do just that, i.e.,
prepare and submit his appellant’s brief on time at the
agreed fee of P15,000.00, 50% down and 50% upon its
completion;
4. Working overtime, respondent was able to finish the
appellant’s brief ahead of its deadline, so he advised the
complainant about its completion with the request that the
remaining balance of P7,500.00 be paid. Complainant paid
P4,000.00 only, promising to pay the P3,500.00
“tomorrow” or on “later particular date.” Please take note
that, at this juncture, there was already a breach of the
agreement on complainant’s part.
5. When that “tomorrow” or on a “later particular date” came,
respondent, thru a messenger, requested the complainant to
pay the P3,500.00 as promised but word was sent that he
will again pay “tomorrow” or on a “later date.” This
promise-non-payment cycle went on repeatedly until the
last day of the filing of the brief. Please take note again that
it was not the respondent but the complainant who sets the
date when he will pay, yet he fails to pay as promised;
6. Even without being paid completely, respondent, of his own
free will and accord, filed complainant’s brief on time;

_______________

3Id., at 23.

VOL. 358, MAY 21, 2001 5

Montano vs. Integrated Bar of the Philippines

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001710705bf9267cb25f5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/10
3/23/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 358

7. After the brief was filed, respondent tried to collect from

the complainant the remaining balance of P3,500.00, but
the latter made himself scarce. As the records would show,
such P3,500.00 remains unpaid until now;
8. Sensing that something was amiss, respondent sent the
February 28, 1993 note and case folder to the complainant,
hoping that the latter would see personally the former about
it to settle the matter between them;
9. However, instead of seeing the respondent, complainant
filed this case;
10. Respondent was constrained to file his withdrawal with the
Court of Appeals because of this case to avoid further
misunderstanding since he was the one who signed the
appellant’s brief although Atty. Gerona was his counsel of
record. Such withdrawal was accordingly granted by the
appellate court;
4
xxx x x x x x x.
Respondent counsel further averred that complainant’s refusal to
pay the agreed lawyer’s fees, measly as it was, was deliberate and in
bad faith; hence, his withdrawal as counsel was “just, ethical and
proper.” Respondent counsel concluded that not only was the
penalty of suspension harsh for his act of merely trying to collect
payment for his services rendered, but it indirectly would punish his
family since he was the sole breadwinner with children in school
and his wife terminally ill with cancer. In its Resolution No. XIII-
97-129 dated October 25, 1997, the IBP denied Atty. Dealca’s
motion for reconsideration, to wit:

xxx
RESOLVED TO DENY Atty. Dealca’s Motion For Reconsideration of
the Board’s Decision in the above-entitled case there being no substantive
reason to reverse the finding therein. Moreover, the motion is improperly
laid the remedy of the respondent is to file the appropriate pleading with the
Supreme Court within fifteen (15) days from 5
receipt of notice of said
Decision pursuant to Sec 12 [c] of Rule 139-B.

________________

4Id., at 53-55.
5Id., at 143.

6 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Montano vs. Integrated Bar of the Philippines

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001710705bf9267cb25f5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/10
3/23/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 358

On December 10, 1997, this Court noted the following pleadings

filed in the present complaint,

(a) notice and a copy of Resolution No. XII-97-154 dated July

26, 1997 of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines amending
the recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner of
reprimand to three (3) months suspension of respondent
from the practice of law for having been found guilty of
misconduct which eroded the public confidence regarding
his duty as a lawyer;
(b) complainant’s motion praying for the imposition of the
maximum penalty of disbarment;
(c) motion dated September 15, 1997 of respondent for
reconsideration of the aforesaid resolution of July 26, 1997;
(d) comment/opposition of respondent praying that the motion
for the imposition of the maximum penalty be denied;
(e) comment of complainant praying that the penalty of three
(3) months suspension from the practice of law as
recommended by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
pursuant to Resolution No. XII-97-154 be raised to a
heavier penalty;
(f) comment/manifestation/opposition of complainant praying
that the respondent be disbarred; and
(g) rejoinder of respondent
6
praying that this case be dismissed
for being baseless.

and referred the same to the IBP for evaluation and report.
In compliance therewith, on March 28, 1998, the IBP issued
Resolution No. XIII-98-42 referring the above-entitled case to
Commissioner Vibar for evaluation, report and recommendation “in
view of the Motion for Reconsideration granted by the Supreme
Court.”
The Investigating Commissioner, after referring the case,
recommended that his original recommendation of the imposition of
the penalty of reprimand be maintained, noting that respondent
counsel had served the IBP well as President of the Sorsogon

__________________

6Id., at 100.

VOL. 358, MAY 21, 2001 7

Montano vs. Integrated Bar of the Philippines

7
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001710705bf9267cb25f5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/10
3/23/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 358
7
Chapter. Accordingly, on February 23, 1999, the IBP Board of
Governors, issued the following resolution:

RESOLUTION NO. XIII-99-48

xxx
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/Decision as Annex “A”; and, finding the recommendation fully
supported by the evidence on record and the applicable laws and rules, the
Motion for Reconsideration be granted and that the penalty of
REPRIMAND earlier recommended 8
by the Investigating Commissioner be
imposed on Atty. Juan S. Dealca.

Complainant asked the IBP 9

to reconsider the foregoing resolution
but the motion was denied.
On April 10, 2000, complainant filed with this Court a petition
for review on certiorari in connection with Administrative Case No.
4215 against the IBP and respondent counsel averring that the IBP
Board of Governors committed grave abuse of discretion when it
overturned its earlier resolution and granted respondent counsel’s
motion for reconsideration on February 23, 1999. He claimed that
the earlier resolution denying the motion for reconsideration issued
on October 25, 1997 had already become final and executory; hence,
any further action or motion subsequent to such final and executory
judgment shall be null and void.
When the Court issued the resolution of December 10, 1997
treating the several pleadings filed in the present complaint, it
should be noted that the IBP resolution denying respondent’s motion
for reconsideration (Resolution No. XIII-97-129) dated October 25,
1997, for some reason, had not yet reached this Court. As of that
date, the only IBP resolution attached to the records of the case was
Resolution No. XII-97-54 amending the administrative sanction
from reprimand to three months suspension. Hence, at

____________________

7Id., at 117-118.
8Id., at 116.
9Id., at 150.

8 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Montano vs. Integrated Bar of the Philippines

the time the pleadings were referred back to the IBP in the same
resolution, the Court was not aware that the IBP had already
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001710705bf9267cb25f5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/10
3/23/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 358

disposed of the motion for reconsideration filed by respondent

counsel.
Thus, when the IBP was informed of the said Court resolution, it
construed the same as granting Atty. Dealca’s motion for
reconsideration and as an order for IBP to conduct a re-evaluation of
the case. The IBP assumed that its resolution of October 25, 1997
was already considered by this Court when it referred the case back
to the IBP. It failed to notice that its resolution denying the motion
for reconsideration was not among those pleadings and resolution
referred back to it.
Hence, on the strength of this Court’s resolution which it had
inadvertently misconstrued, the IBP conducted a re-evaluation of the
case and came up with the assailed resolution now sought to be
reversed. The Court holds that the error is not attributable to the IBP.
It is regrettable that the procedural infirmity alleged by complainant
actually arose from a mere oversight which was attributable to
neither party.
Going into the merits, we affirm the findings made by the IBP
that complainant engaged the services of respondent lawyer only for
the preparation and submission of the appellant’s brief and the
attorney’s fees was payable upon the completion and submission of
the appellant’s brief and not upon the termination of the case.
There is sufficient evidence which indicates complainant’s
willingness to pay the attorney’s fees. As agreed upon, complainant
paid half of the fees in the amount of P7,500.00 upon acceptance of
the case. And while the remaining balance was not yet due as it was
agreed to be paid only upon the completion and submission of the
brief, complainant nonetheless delivered to respondent lawyer
P4,000.00 as the latter demanded. This, notwithstanding, Atty.
Dealca withdrew his appearance simply because of complainant’s
failure to pay the remaining balance of P3,500.00, which does not
appear to be deliberate. The situation was aggravated by respondent
counsel’s note to complainant withdrawing10 as counsel which was
couched in impolite and insulting language.

__________________

10 See Note 2.

VOL. 358, MAY 21, 2001 9

Montano vs. Integrated Bar of the Philippines

Given the above circumstances, was Atty. Dealca's conduct just and
proper?
We find Atty. Dealca’s conduct unbecoming of a member of the
legal profession. Under Canon 22 of the Code of Professional
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001710705bf9267cb25f5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/10
3/23/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 358

Responsibility, a lawyer shall withdraw his services only for good

cause and upon notice appropriate in the circumstances. Although he
may withdraw his services 11
when the client deliberately fails to pay
the fees for the services, under the circumstances of the present
case, Atty. Dealca’s withdrawal was unjustified as complainant did
not deliberately fail to pay him the attorney’s fees. In fact,
complainant exerted honest efforts to fulfill his obligation.
Respondent’s contemptuous conduct does not speak well of a
member of the bar considering that the amount owing to him was
only P3,500.00. Rule 20.4 of Canon 20, mandates that a lawyer shall
avoid controversies with clients concerning his compensation and
shall resort to judicial action only to prevent imposition, injustice or
fraud. Sadly, for not so large a sum owed to him by complainant,
respondent lawyer failed to act in accordance with the demands of
the Code.
The Court, however, does not agree with complainant’s
contention that the maximum penalty of disbarment should be
imposed on respondent lawyer. The power to disbar must be
exercised with great caution. Only in a clear case of misconduct that
seriously affects the standing and character of the lawyer as an
officer of the Court and member of the bar will disbarment be
imposed as a penalty. It should never be decreed where a lesser
penalty,12such as temporary suspension, would accomplish the end
desired. In the present case, reprimand is deemed sufficient.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, respondent Atty. Juan
S. Dealca is REPRIMANDED with a warning that repetition of the
same act will be dealt with more severely.

__________________

11 Canon 22, Rule 22.01, (e); see also Orcino vs. Gaspar, 279 SCRA 379 (1997).
12 Resurrecion vs. Sayson, 300 SCRA 129 (1998).

10

10 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Siawan vs. Inopiquez, Jr.

SO ORDERED.

Davide, Jr. (C.J., Chairman), Puno, Pardo and Ynares-

Santiago, JJ., concur.

Atty. Juan S. Dealca reprimanded and warned against repetition

of the same act.

Note.—A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and must
be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed on him. (Curimatmat

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001710705bf9267cb25f5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/10
3/23/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 358

vs. Gojar, 308 SCRA 123 [1999])

——o0o——

© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001710705bf9267cb25f5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/10