CERINA B. LIKONG, PETITIONER, VS. ATTY. ALEXANDER H. LIM, RESPONDENT.

Cerina B. Likong filed this administrative case against Atty.
Alexander H. Lim, seeking the latter’s disbarment for alleged malpractice and
grave misconduct.

The circumstances
which led to the filing of this complaint
are as follows:

Sometime in September 1984, complainant obtained a loan of
P92,100.00 from a certain Geesnell L. Yap. Complainant executed a promissory note in favor of Yap and a deed of
assignment, assigning to Yap pension checks which she regularly receives from
the United States government as a widow of a US pensioner. The aforementioned deed of assignment states
that the same shall be irrevocable until the loan is fully paid. Complainant likewise executed a special
power of attorney authorizing Yap to get, demand, collect and receive her
pension checks from the post office at Tagbilaran City. The above documents were apparently prepared
and notarized by respondent Alexander H. Lim, Yap’s counsel.

On 11 December 1984, about three (3) months after the execution
of the aforementioned special power of attorney, complainant informed the
Tagbilaran City post office that she was revoking the special power of
attorney. As a consequence, Geesnell
Yap filed a complaint for injunction with damages against complainant. Respondent Alexander H. Lim appeared as
counsel for Yap while Attys. Roland B. Inting and Erico B. Aumentado appeared for complainant (as defendant).

A writ of preliminary injunction was issued by the trial court on
23 January 1985, preventing complainant from getting her pension checks from
the Tagbilaran City post office. Yap
later filed an urgent omnibus motion to cite complainant in contempt of court
for attempting to circumvent the preliminary injunction by changing her address
to Mandaue City. Upon motion by Yap,
the court also issued an order dated 21 May 1985 expanding the scope of the
preliminary injunction to prevent all post offices in the Philippines from releasing pension
checks to complainant.

On 26 July 1985, complainant and Yap filed a joint motion to
allow the latter to withdraw the pension checks. This motion does not bear the signatures of complainant’s counsel
of record but only the signatures of both parties, “assisted by”
respondent Attorney Alexander H. Lim.

On 2 August 1985,
complainant and Yap entered into a compromise agreement again without the
participation of the former’s counsel. In the compromise agreement, it was stated that complainant Cerina B.
Likong admitted an obligation to Yap of P150,000.00. It was likewise stated therein that
complainant and Yap agreed that the amount would be paid in monthly
installments over a period of 54 months at an interest of 40% per annum
discounted every six (6) months. The compromise agreement was approved by the trial court on 15 August
1985.

On 24 November 1987, Cerina B. Likong filed the present complaint
for disbarment, based on the following allegations:

“7.     In all these
motions, complainant was prevented from seeking assistance, advise and
signature of any of her two (2) lawyers; no copy thereof was furnished to
either of them or at least to complainant herself despite the latter’s pleas to
be furnished copies of the same;

8.       Complainant was even
advised by respondent that it was not necessary for her to consult her lawyers
under the pretense that: (a) this could
only jeopardize the settlement; (b) she would only be incurring enormous
expense if she consulted a new lawyer; (c) respondent was assisting her anyway;
(d) she had nothing to worry about the documents foisted upon her to sign; (e)
complainant need not come to court afterwards to save her time; and in any
event respondent already took care of everything;

9.       Complainant had been
prevented from exhibiting fully her case by means of fraud, deception and some
other form of mendacity practiced on her by respondent;

10.      Finally, respondent
fraudulently or without authority assumed to represent complainant and connived
in her defeat; x x x “^[1]

Respondent filed his Answer stating that counsel for complainant,
Atty. Roland B. Inting had abandoned his client. Atty. Lim further stated that
the other counsel, Atty. Enrico Aumentado, did not actively participate in the
case and it was upon the request of complainant and another debtor of Yap,
Crispina Acuna, that he (respondent)
made the compromise agreement.

Respondent states that he first instructed complainant to notify
her lawyers but was informed that her lawyer had abandoned her since she could
not pay his attorney’s fees.

Complainant filed a reply denying that she had been abandoned by
her lawyers. Complainant stated that
respondent never furnished her lawyers with copies of the compromise agreement
and a motion to withdraw the injunction cash bond deposited by Yap.

At the outset, it is worth noting that the terms of the
compromise agreement are indeed grossly loaded in favor of Geesnell L. Yap,
respondent’s client.

Complainant’s original obligation was to pay P92,100.00 within
one (1) year from 4 October 1984. There
is no provision in the promissory note signed by her with respect to any
interest to be paid. The only
additional amount which Yap could collect based on the promissory note was 25%
of the principal as attorney’s fees in case a lawyer was hired by him to
collect the loan.

In the compromise agreement prepared by respondent, dated 2
August 1985, complainant’s debt to Yap was increased to P150,000.00
(from 92,100.00) after the lapse of only ten (10) months. This translates to an interest in excess of seventy?five percent (75%)
per annum. In addition,
the compromise agreement provides that the P150,000.00 debt would be payable in
fifty-four (54) monthly installments at an interest of forty percent (40%) per annum. No great amount of mathematical prowess is
required to see that the terms of the compromise agreement are grossly
prejudicial to complainant.

With respect to respondent’s failure to notify complainant’s counsel
of the compromise agreement, it is of record that complainant was represented
by two (2) lawyers, Attys. Inting and Aumentado. Complainant states that respondent prevented her from informing
her lawyers by giving her the
reasons enumerated in the complaint and earlier quoted in this decision.

There is no showing that respondent even tried to inform opposing
counsel of the compromise agreement. Neither is there any showing that respondent informed the trial court of
the allege abandonment of the complainant by her counsel.

Instead, even assuming that complainant was really abandoned by
her counsel, respondent saw an opportunity to take advantage of the situation,
and the result was the execution of the compromise agreement which, as
previously discussed, is grossly and patently disadvantageous and prejudicial
to complainant.

Undoubtedly, respondent’s conduct is unbecoming a member of the legal profession.

Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Ethics states:

“9. Negotiations with
opposite party

A lawyer should not in any way
communicate upon the subject of controversy with a party represented by
counsel; much less should he undertake to negotiate or compromise the matter
with him, but should deal only with his counsel. It is incumbent upon the lawyer most particularly to avoid
everything that may tend to mislead a party not represented by counsel and he
should not undertake to advise him as to the law.”

The Code of Professional Responsibility states:

“Rule 1.01 – A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest,
immoral, or deceitful conduct

Rule 8.02 – A lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly, encroach
upon the professional employment of another lawyer; however, it is the right of
any lawyer, without fear or favor, to give proper advice and assistance to
those seeking relief against unfaithful or neglectful counsel.

Rule 15.03 – A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests
except by written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the
facts. “

The violation of the aforementioned rules of professional conduct
by respondent Atty. Alexander H. Lim, warrants the imposition upon him of the
proper sanction from this Court. Such
acts constituting malpractice and grave misconduct cannot be left unpunished
for not only do they erode confidence and trust in the legal profession, they
likewise prevent justice from being attained.

ACCORDINGLY, respondent Atty. Alexander H. Lim is hereby
imposed the penalty of SUSPENSION from the practice of law for a period of ONE
(1) YEAR, effective immediately upon his receipt of this decision.

Let a copy of this decision be entered in respondent’s personal
record as attorney and member of the Bar, and furnished the Bar Confidant, the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines and the Court Administrator for circulation
to all courts in the country.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., (Chairman), Regalado, Puno, and Mendoza, JJ., concur.

^[1]
P. 2, Complaint.