Felicisima Mendoza vs. Attys. Mendoza and Navarro, Jr.

A.C. No. 6056, September 9. 2015

Facts: Atty. Mendoza was a relative of the Mendozas engaged by them as counsel in the proceedings
before the CENRO (Community Environment and Natural Resources Office) and LMB. Said proceeding is
in pursuance of an application for original registration of two parcels of land of the complainant’s father.
For that purpose, a Contract of Service was entered into providing in the event of favourable resolution,
Felicisima shall convey to Atty. Mendoza 1/5 of the lands subject of the application or 1/5 of the
proceeds should same be sold.
The proceedings resulted in the dismissal of the application for Lot. No. 2489 and partial grant of
application for Lot No. 3771. Said lot was subsequently sold by Felicisima and her siblings to Greenfield
Corporation with P2M as down payment.
Not having been paid his contingency fee, Atty. Mendoza joined by his wife filed with RTC a
complaint against Felicisma and her siblings. For their part, Felicisima denied the existence of and
authenticity of the Contract of Service. RTC ruled in favor of Atty. Mendoza ordering Felicisima to pay
P1,258,000 as attorney’s fees as well as the total cost of the suit.
Atty. Navarro filed a Notice of Appeal on behalf of Felicisima. However, Atty. Mendoza moved
for execution pending appeal and since there was no opposition, a writ of execution was issued resulting
in the levy and eventual transfer of Felicisima’s properties in favor of Atty. Mendoza.
The CA ordered Felicisima to file an appellant’s brief but Atty. Navarro failed to file the same
which caused the dismissal of the appeal.
Thus, Felicisima filed a complaint-affidavit for the disbarment of Atty. Mendoza for allegedly
deceiving her into signing the Contract of Service by taking advantage of her illiteracy and against Atty.
Navarro for dereliction of duty in handling her case before the CA causing her properties to be levied
and sold at public auction.

ISSUE: WON Atty. Mendoza and Atty. Navarro should be disbarred?

RULING:
As to Atty. Mendoza, the Court finds no ground to support Felicisima’s claim that she did not
enter into any written agreement with Atty. Mendoza. She likewise failed to adduce sufficient evidence
to defeat Atty. Mendoza’s claim for attorney’s fees.
It bears to stress that a contingent fee arrangement is valid in this jurisdiction and is generally
recognized as valid and binding but must be laid down in an express contract.

As to Atty. Navarro, the Court finds based on record that he failed to live up to the standards of
diligence and competence of the legal profession.
Lawyers engaged to represent a client in a case bear the responsibility of protecting the latter’s
interest with warmth, zeal and utmost diligence. They must constantly keep in mind that their actions or
omissions would be binding on the client. In the case, Atty. Navarro agreed to represent Felicisima. He
likewise attended hearings of the case until the RTC rendered an adverse judgment. After filing the
Notice of Appeal, nothing was heard of him again. Atty. Navarro was suspended for 6 months with
warning that a repetition of the same shall be dealt with more severely.

CANON 18 of the CPR mandates that a lawyer shall serve his client with competence and
diligence. RULE 18.03 further provides that a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him
and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable. RULE 18.04 provides that a lawyer
shall keep the client informed of the status of his case and shall respond within a reasonable time to the
client’s request for information.