A.C. No.

9091, December 11, 2013

CONCHITA A. BALTAZAR, ROLANDO SAN
PEDRO,
ALICIA
EULALIO-RAMOS,
SOLEDAD
A.
FAJARDO
AND
ENCARNACION
A.
FERNANDEZ, Complainants,
v.ATTY. JUAN B. BAEZ, JR.,Respondent.
Complainants are engaged the legal
services of Atty. Baez, Jr. in connection
with the recovery of their three parcels of
land located in Bataan with subdivision
developer Fevidal.
Complainants signed a contract of legal
services, where they would not pay
acceptance and appearance fees to Atty.
Baez Jr., but that the docket fees would
instead be shared by the parties.
Under the contract, complainants would
pay him 50% of whatever would be
recovered of the properties. Later,
however, complainants terminated his
services and entered into an amicable
settlement with Fevidal. Atty. Baez, Jr.
opposed the withdrawal of their complaint
in court. Thus, complainants filed a case
against him alleging that the motion of
Atty. Baez, Jr. for the recording of his
attorneys
charging
lien
was
the
preventing them from enjoying the fruits

of their property as it is clothed with legal

problems. In their complaint, they claim
that respondent violated Canons 1, 12, 15,
18 and 20.
Section 26, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court
allows an attorney to intervene in a case
to protect his rights concerning the
payment of his compensation. According
to the discretion of the court, the attorney
shall have a lien upon all judgments for
the payment of money rendered in a case
in which his services have been retained
by the client. Hence, it was found that he
did not violate canon 20.
In this case, however, the contract for
legal services is in the nature of a
champertous contract an agreement
whereby an attorney undertakes to pay
the expenses of the proceedings to
enforce the clients rights in exchange for
some bargain to have a part of the thing in
dispute. Such contracts are contrary to
public policy and are thus void or
inexistent. They are also contrary to
Canon 16.04 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, which states that lawyers
shall not lend money to a client, except
when in the interest of justice, they have
to advance necessary expenses in a legal
matter they are handling for the client.
Thus, the Court held that Atty. Baez, Jr.
violated Canon 16.04 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.