24. Ulanday vs Manila Road Co.

can not be secured, there must be filed with the application

proof of service of notice of such motion upon the attorney
OVERVIEW Facts: While the appeals in sixty-eight cases brought by
to be substituted, in the manner prescribed by the rules.
more than two hundred plaintiffs to recover and damages from the it was ordered that the resolution of the court of July 19, 1923,
Manila Railroad Company, defendant and appellant, hereafter granting the motion for dismissal be set aside.
called the Binday cases, were in process of development for
submission to the court, Attorney Antonio de las Alas attempted to Incidental thereto, Attorney Turner asked for a restraining order
substitute Attorney E.G. Turner and associate counsel as the legal against the Manila Railroad Company, its manager and attorney,
representatives of the plaintiffs. On resistance of Attorney Turner and others who may represent said defendant, from paying to
to the attempted substitution, the issue came down to a Ambrosio Erfe-Mejia the amount of P20,000 still in the possession
determination of whether or not the alleged power of attorney in of the company until further orders in the premises, which motion
favor of Ambrosio Erfe-Mejia (Who is MEJIA: May 26, 1913, the the court granted.
Binday property owners entered into an agreement with Ambrosio
Erfe-Mejia which, in effect, authorized Erfe to secure lawyers to About the same time also, Attorney Antonio de las Alas complied
prosecute the claims and to pay them fifty per cent of the with the Rules of the Court in a motion for substitution which
proceeds, Erfe to retain twenty per cent for his services.) pursuant relied on a power of attorney in favor of Ambrosio Erfe-Mejia of
to which Attorney De las Alas was assuming to act, is valid and June 21, 1923, acknowledged before the justice of the peace of
controlling as claimed by Attorney De las Alas, or fraudulent, null, San Fabian, Pangasinan, on June 22, 1923. But as was intimated in
and void as claimed by Attorney Turner.
the beginning of the decision, Attorney Turner contending that the
supposed power of attorney which Ambrosio Erfe-Mejia has, is
MAIN FACTS: Attorney E.G. Turner, along with Attorneys C.W. fraudulent and obtained through deceit and misrepresentation,
Rheberg and Teofilo Sison, were looked upon as counsel for all of and Attorney De las Alas claiming the exact contrary, the court
the plaintiffs in the Binday cases until July 17, 1923, when framed the issue for the parties and gave them full opportunity to
Attorney Antonio de las Alas, signing himself as attorney for the demonstrate the correctness of their divergent theories. Both
plaintiffs, entered his appearance. On the same date, Attorney De parties have taken full advantage of this permission and have
las Alas for plaintiffs-appellees and Attorney Abreu for the overwhelmed the court with memoranda and argument,
defendant-appellant, stated to the court by motion that "they had supported by affidavits and other documents.
terminated, adjusted, and settled each and everyone of these
cases amicably. Wherefore, it is moved that all these cases be Issue: Whether Atty Turner is entitled to his lien for the work he
dismissed without costs." The court accepting the motion for performed. (YES)
dismissal at its face value, granted the same two days later.
(canon 20.02 and 20.04), held: EVEN there was a valid
substitution atty turner still entitled to his lien
That very day also, Attorneys Turner, Rheberg, and Sison, gave
notice that they had a lien upon the judgments, which has been RULING: The power of attorney of June 21, 1923, in connection
noted by the court. (they should be paid before their termination)
with the prior authorization in favor of Ambrosio Erfe-Mejia and
subsequent ratification, is valid and controlling. We find further
but on July 24, 1923, it having been brought to the attention of the that as the power of attorney is valid and controlling, there has
court that the motion for dismissal in the Binday cases was been a proper substitution of attorneys in this court, and that
pursuant to an appearance by Attorney De las Alas which did not Attorney Antonio de las Alas must be recognized as counsel for
conform to the rules expressly laid down in the case of United the plaintiffs. We find further that Attorney E.G. Turner and
States vs. Borromeo ([1911], 20 Phil., 189)
associate counsel have liens on the judgments for professional
(1) A written application for such substitution; (2) the services the reasonable value of which we fix at P30,000.
written consent of the client; (3) the written consent of the Inasmuch as there only remains a balance of P20,000 available for
attorney substituted; and, (4) in case such written consent the purpose of paying Attorney Turner and associate counsel,

inasmuch as this happened through no fault of Attorney Turner,

and inasmuch as to make him look to the plaintiffs for further
payment would be unfair, the compromise agreement is modified
and approved as of the amount of P100,000.
Attorneys Turner, Rheberg, and Sison have been paid P30,000 in
satisfaction of their liens, the motion to dismiss the appeals in
these sixty-eight cases, is approved. So ordered.

While the client has the right at any time to dismiss his
lawyer or substitute another in his place, and while the
client has the right to compromise the litigation, the right of
the attorney to his lien will be protected by the courts.

The client may at any time dismiss his attorney or

substitute another in his place

Tumbagahan vs CA

When Atty. Melvyn T. Salise filed his motion to withdraw as counsel

for petitioner, he stated that petitioner has terminated his legal
services and that he was withdrawing as such counsel. There was
Facts: petitioner filed two cases with the Court of First Instance of no indication in said motion that petitioner had likewise
Lanao del Norte, Branch II, namely: (1) Civil Case No. 1257, for discharged Atty. Amarga as his counsel for petitioner. Therefore,
declaration of ownership and reconveyance of Lot Nos. 3050 and Atty. Amarga continued to be the counsel for petitioner.
3051 of the Iligan Cadastre; and (2) Cadastral Case No. IL-N-4, for
the review of the decree of registration issued by the Land
Registration Commission in favor of Timotea Lasmarias and There is a need to observe the legal formalities before a counsel of
cancellation of her titles to the same lots. When the cases were record may be considered relieved of his responsibility as such
called for joint trial on April 10, 1968, Ramon Tumbagahan counsel (Cubar vs. Mendoza, 120 SCRA 768). The withdrawal as
terminated the services of his counsel Atty. Melvyn Salise which counsel of a client, or the dismissal by the client of his counsel,
was approved by court. On April 15, 1968, the cases were again must be made in a formal petition filed in the case Baquiran vs.
called for trial. This time, the petitioner personally appeared and Court of Appeals, 2 SCRA 873, 878). In this case, the termination
filed a written motion for postponement on the ground that he still of the attorney-client relationship between the petitioner and Atty.
had no counsel and was not ready for trial. Upon motion of the Salise does not automatically severe the same relations between
other party, the motion for postponement was denied and the the petitioner and Atty. Amarga. Only Atty. Salise's dismissal was
court issued an order dismissing the two cases.
made of record. None was made with regard to the other counsel.
A copy of the order was sent to Atty. Amarga which he received on
April 26, 1968.
The petitioner received his copy of the order on May 17, 1968.
Thereafter, he filed his motion for reconsideration. After the
motion was denied, he filed a notice of appeal and record on
appeal which the Court dismissed for being filed out of time,
counting the period to appeal from the day Atty. Amarga received
a copy of the order of dismissal.
The petitioner alleges that he had neither engaged the services of
Atty. Amarga nor authorized the latter to represent him in his two
cases.
Issue: WON amarga was engaged as counsel and court was
correct in dismissing his notice and record of appeal?
Holding:
YES:
Petitionees answer to the counterclaim of private
respondents del Rosario and the IISMI Supervisors Housing
Association, Inc. was filed by Attys. M. Salise and J. Amarga and
signed by Atty. Jose B. Amarga (p. 14, record on appeal). This fact
sufficiently shows that Atty. Jose B. Amarga was one of the counsel
for petitioner in said cases.

The attorney-client relation does not terminate formally until there

is a withdrawal made of record; at least so far as the opposite
party is concerned, the relation otherwise continues until the end
of the litigation (Visitacion vs. Manit 27 SCRA 523). Unless
properly relieved, the counsel is responsible for the conduct of the
case WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DISMISSED for lack of
merit. The questioned decision of the Court of Appeals is
AFFIRMED.

Quilban vs Robinol

documentation, transfer of title etc)., the five officers of the

Samahan collected, little by little, P 2,500.00 from each head of
Facts: The Colegio de San Jose, a Jesuit corporation, (Colegio, for
family. 75k was given to atty. robinol to effect the payment. After
short) used to own a parcel of land at the Seminary Road, Barrio
almost a year, the five officers discovered that no payment had
Bathala, Quezon City. Through its administrator, Father Federico
been made to Rivera.
Escaler, it sold said land to the Quezon City Government as the
site for the Quezon City General Hospital but reserved an area of When queried, Atty. Robinol replied that there was an intervention
2,743 square meters as a possible development site. Squatters, filed in the civil case and that a Writ of Execution had not yet been
however, settled in the area since 1965 or 1966.
issued by the Court of First Instance of Quezon City. However, it
turned out that the motion for intervention had already been
in 1970, the Colegio, through Father Escaler gave permission to
dismissed. After confronting Atty. Robinol with that fact, the latter
Congressman Luis R. Taruc to build on the reserved site a house
gave other excuses, which the officers discovered to have no basis
for his residence and a training center for the Christian Social
at all.
Movement. Seeing the crowded shanties of squatters,
Congressman Taruc broached to Father Escaler the Idea of On 6 March 1980, 21 out of 32 plaintiffs arrived at a "first
donating or selling the land cheap to the squatters. Congressman consensus" to change their counsel, Atty. Robinol The officers of
Taruc then advised the squatters to form an organization and the Samahan thereafter approached Atty. Anacleto R.
choose a leader authorized to negotiate with Father Escaler. Montemayor, who agreed to be their counsel
Following that advice, the squatters formed the "Samahang
Upon Atty. Montemayor's advice, the officers sent Atty. Robinol a
Pagkakaisa ng Barrio Bathala, with Bernabe Martin as President
letter dated 17 March 1980 informing the latter of their decision to
who was entrusted with the task of negotiating on their behalf for
terminate his services and demanding the return of the P
the sale of the land to them.
75,000.00 deposited with him which was disregarded by atty
nstead of working for the welfare of the Samahan, Martin went to robinol.
one Maximo Rivera, a realtor, with whom he connived to obtain
Bec. He did not want to give back the 75k admin complaint was
the sale to the exclusion of the other Samahan members. On 28
filed.
March 1971, the land was ultimately sold to Rivera at P 15 per
square meter or a total consideration of P 41,961.65. The Robinol in his defense: that he had the right to hold the money in
prevailing price of the land in the vicinity then was P 100 to P 120 his possession as guarantee for the payment of his attomey's fees
per square meter. It was evident that Father Escaler had been of get a portion of the property that win pertain to each of the
made to believe that Rivera represented the squatters on the plaintiffs, he wants his portion converted to cash, and the cash
equivalent of his portion is P 50,000.00 (2,743 square meters
property.
divided by 32 plaintiffs equals 85 square meters for each plaintiff,
In 1972, thirty-two heads of families of the Samahan filed Civil
multiplied by P 500.00 up per square meter); that considering that
Case against rivera
P 50,000.00 is even less than one-half (1/ 2) per cent of the total
To prosecute the appeal before the Court of Appeals, the Samahan value of the property, which is more than a million pesos, such
members hired as their counsel Atty. Santiago R. Robinol Atty. amount is not unreasonabl
Robinol was also to be given by the members a part of the land.
Issue: WON atty ROBINOL can hold the money
CA favoured the SAMAHAN and ordered maximo to execute a deed
of conveyance to the samahan members after the payment of the
corresponding amount paid by the defendants to the Colegio de Holding:
San Jose, Inc.
NO Atty. Robinol has, in fact, been guilty of ethical infractions and
To raise the amount of P 41,961.65 ordered paid by the Court of grave misconduct that make him unworthy to continue in the
Appeals(atty fees and costs, plus expenses for ejectment of the practice of the profession. After the Court of Appeals had rendered
non-plaintiffs
occupying
the
property,
conveyance, a Decision favorable to his clients and he had received the latter's

funds, suddenly, he had a change of mind and decided to convert

the payment of his fees from a portion of land equivalent to that
of each of the plaintiffs to P 50,000.00, which he alleges to be the
monetary value of that area. Certainly, Atty. Robinol had no right
to unilaterally appropriate his clients' money not only because he
is bound by a written agreement but also because, under the
circumstances, it was highly unjust for him to have done so. His
clients were mere squatters who could barely eke out an existence
They had painstakingly raised their respective quotas of P
2,500.00 per family with which to pay for the land only to be
deprived of the same by one who, after having seen the color of
money, heart lessly took advantage of them.
The principle of quantum meruit applies if a lawyer is employed
without a price agreed upon for his services in which case he
would be entitled to receive what he merits for his services, as
much as he has earned. In this case, however, there was an
express contract and a stipulated mode of compensation. The
implied assumpsit on quantum meruit therefore, is inapplicable.
Atty. Santiago R. Robinol is hereby DISBARRED for having violated
his lawyer's oath to delay no man for money, broken the fiduciary
relation between lawyer and client, and proven himself unworthy
to continue in the practice of law. By reason of his unethical
actuations, he is hereby declared to have forfeited his rights to
attomey's fees and is ordered to return the amount of P 75,000.00
to the plaintiffs in Civil Case No. Q-16433 through the complainant
in the aforementioned Administrative Case.