Can't share this digest on Facebook? Here's why.
A.M. No. 434 – Legal Ethics – Practice of Law – Attorney’s Fees; Attorney’s Lien
Atty. Casiano Laput used to be the counsel for Nieves Barrera until the latter discharged him of his services because she lost trust and confidence in him due to dubious transactions that Laput handled while representing her in a testate proceeding. One of the lawyers retained by Barrera to replace Laput was Atty. Francisco Remotigue. In September 1957, Remotigue, without notice to Laput, asked the court to direct Laput to turn over certain documents and titles to Barrera so that the latter may properly disposed some estate properties. The court granted the same. But Laput stubbornly kept the said documents as he claimed that said estate properties are subject to his lien and that he needs to be paid first.
ISSUE: Whether or not Laput has the right to withhold said documents.
HELD: No. It turns out that Laput’s attorney’s fees were already significantly paid while he was still the counsel for Barrera (as backed by evidence presented by Remotigue) hence he no longer has a lien on the properties of the estate. Therefore, he cannot retain the certificates of title in question. On another note, he cannot now charge Remotigue with malice and bad faith when the latter filed without notice to Laput motions to direct Laput to surrender said certificates because as records proved, even though no notice was sent to him, he had regularly checked on the record of this case hence he would have come across the same.
