ATTY. JUAN PAULO VILLONCO, COMPLAINANT, V. ATTY. ROMEO G. ROXAS, RESPONDENT.

Villonco versus Roxas

The Case

This is an administrative case for disbarment or suspension, filed by Atty. Juan Paolo Villonco against Atty. Romeo Roxas for gross misconduct and for violating the Code of Professional Responsibility. Villonco was the president of Republic Real Estate Corporation, which had engaged Roxas as its counsel on a contingent basis. The case matters because it is the Supreme Court's cleanest teaching on the lawyer's duty of fidelity to the client's cause: a lawyer may not defy the client's express instructions, may not continue to appear after being terminated, and may not hold the client hostage with threats of suit. It also reminds us that the client's power to discharge counsel is absolute, subject only to the lawyer's right to be compensated.

Procedural History

The case began as an administrative complaint filed directly with the Supreme Court, which referred it to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for investigation. The Investigating Commissioner of the Commission on Bar Discipline rendered a report recommending the penalty of censure, finding that Roxas had violated Section 27 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court and Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar adopted the recommendation but modified the penalty, imposing suspension from the practice of law for six months for the blatant violation of Section 27 of Rule 138 and Canon 15. The matter then came before the Supreme Court for final action on the Board's resolution.

Facts

Republic Real Estate Corporation, with Villonco as its president, hired Roxas as counsel on a contingent basis in its case against the Republic of the Philippines over reclaimed land now occupied by the Cultural Center of the Philippines complex. The corporation was awarded around 10,926,071 pesos representing the sum spent in the reclamation, and the case was remanded to the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City for execution of the decision.

The corporation's Board of Directors instructed Roxas to defer the filing of the motion for the issuance of a writ of execution until further notice, but he filed it anyway. The Republic then filed a petition for certiorari, and the Court of Appeals declared the writ of execution null and void. Without securing the corporation's consent and authority, Roxas filed a motion for reconsideration and a motion for inhibition with the Court of Appeals. He likewise filed, on the corporation's behalf, a complaint for serious misconduct against three Court of Appeals Justices and a petition assailing the constitutionality of Presidential Decree Number 774.

Because of these unauthorized acts, the Board asked Roxas to withdraw voluntarily as counsel. He refused, so the corporation terminated its retainer agreement and engaged another lawyer. Despite his termination, Roxas still appeared for the corporation and continued to argue its case, and he threatened to sue the members of the Board unless they reinstated him. Villonco was thus compelled to file the administrative complaint. For his part, Roxas claimed twenty-one years of competent service, said he had singlehandedly advanced litigation expenses, insisted he could not be removed because of a contingency fee contract coupled with interest, and argued that his blanket authority to exercise sound discretion made the Board's approval unnecessary.

Issues

• Whether or not Atty. Roxas is administratively liable for violating the Code of Professional Responsibility, particularly Canon 17, for defying his client's express instructions and filing unauthorized pleadings on its behalf.
• Whether or not the termination of his retainer by Republic Real Estate Corporation was proper and justified, notwithstanding his claim of a contingency fee contract and blanket authority.
• Whether or not the penalty of suspension should be increased beyond the six months recommended by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.

Applicable Provisions

Canon 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides:

CANON 17 - A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him.

This is the provision the Court holds was disregarded when Roxas defied the Board's instruction to defer the motion for execution and filed unauthorized pleadings.

Section 27 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, cited by the Integrated Bar in its resolution, provides:

Section 27. Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court; grounds therefor. — A member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is required to take before admission to practice, or for a willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, or for corruptly or willfully appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without authority so to do.

This is the ground provision for the disciplinary penalty imposed on him.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court found no cogent reason to depart from the findings of the Integrated Bar and held Roxas administratively liable. The relationship between lawyer and client is one imbued with utmost trust and confidence, and the client expects the lawyer to be ever mindful of the cause and to exercise the required degree of diligence. Roxas defied the Board's specific instruction to postpone the motion for execution, filed a motion for reconsideration and a motion for inhibition without authority, and filed a complaint against the Justices and a constitutional challenge on the corporation's behalf without approval. His supposed blanket authority could not justify him, especially on non-procedural matters, because he was contradicting his client's trust and confidence. The Court held that he was principally moved by his desire to be compensated for advanced expenses and professional fees, and later acted out of exasperation and disappointment. He fell short of the high standard of morality, honesty, integrity, and fair dealing expected of a lawyer.

On the second issue, the Court held that the termination of his retainer was proper and justified. A client may absolutely discharge his lawyer at any time, with or without cause, and without need of the lawyer's consent or the court's approval. That right is subject, however, to the lawyer's right to be compensated: in the discretion of the court, the attorney may intervene to protect his rights, and he shall have a lien upon all judgments for the payment of money and executions issued in pursuance of such judgment, rendered in the case where his services had been retained, for the payment of his compensation.

On the third issue, the Court held that while a six-month suspension would suffice for violating Canon 17, a one-year suspension was more proportionate to the offense. It noted that in 2007 Roxas had been found guilty of indirect contempt and fined 30,000 pesos for insinuating that a then Associate Justice had decided his cases on considerations other than the merits and for calling the Supreme Court a dispenser of injustice, and he had been warned then that a repetition would warrant a more severe penalty. For his constant display of contumacious attitude, not only against his own client but also against the courts, a more serious penalty was warranted.

Doctrine

A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and must be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him, as Canon 17 commands. A lawyer may not defy the client's express instructions on how to proceed with the case, and a general blanket authority to exercise sound discretion does not justify contradicting the client's trust and confidence, especially on non-procedural matters. A client may discharge his lawyer at any time, with or without cause, without the lawyer's consent or the court's approval; the lawyer's remedy is not to continue appearing, but to intervene to protect his right to compensation and to claim a lien upon judgments for the payment of money and executions issued in pursuance of such judgment. Willfully appearing as an attorney for a party without authority is a ground for suspension or disbarment under Section 27 of Rule 138. Finally, the practice of law is imbued with public interest, and lawyers must maintain not only a high standard of legal proficiency but also of morality, honesty, integrity, and fair dealing.

Disposition

The Supreme Court suspended Atty. Romeo Roxas from the practice of law for one year, warned him that a repetition of the same or similar offense shall be dealt with more severely, and ordered that copies of the decision be entered in his records with the Office of the Bar Confidant and disseminated to all lower courts and to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.

Remember This

Memorize this line: a client may absolutely discharge his lawyer at any time, with or without cause, and without need of the lawyer's consent or the court's approval, subject only to the lawyer's right to be compensated. Examiners use this case to test Canon 17 fidelity, the limits of blanket authority, and the lawyer's remedy of intervention and attorney's lien after termination.