Malecdan v.

Pekas
421 SCRA 7

CALLEJO, SR., J.:

FACTS:

Complainant Mary Malecdan bought a parcel of land located in Baguio

City from Spouses Washington and Eliza Fanged. The money was received
by Eliza Fanged and deposited in the account of Atty. Artemio Bustamante,
then counsel for the latter. Malecdan later found out that the said lot was the
subject of a controversy between the former owners and the Fanged
Spouses. Atty. Kollin substituted Atty. Bustamante as a counsels for the
Fanged Spouses. He filed for a petition for rescission over the contract of
sale, without returning the amount of money to Malecdan. While Malecdan
was in abroad, the Fanged spouses, Atty. Bustamante and the PCIB (bank)
signed a compromised contract, and Malecdan was not made a signatory to
such contract. They caused the transfer of P30,000.00 from the account of
Bustamante to a separate account for Kollin and Pekas as attorney’s fees.

In the Manifestation of Compromise Settlement with Motion, Kollin

asked Atty. Pekas, to sign as counsel for Eliza Fanged. As counsel for Eliza
Fanged, Pekas signed the Notice of Dismissal with a misleading statement
that "the parties have extrajudicially settled this case amicably among
themselves", when in truth and in fact, Malecdan was never consulted.
Malecdan filed a case for violation of the lawyer’s oath against Kollin and
Peka.

Hence, this petition.

Issue:

Whether or not Kollin and Pekas violated the lawyer’s oath and Code
of Professional Responsibility.

Ruling:

Kollin and Pekas had violated the lawyer’s oath and Code of
Professional Responsibility.
 It is a settled principle that the compensation of a lawyer should be but
a mere incident of the practice of law, the primary purpose of which is to
render public service. The practice of law is a profession and not a money-
making trade. As they are an indispensable part of the system of
administering justice, attorneys must comply strictly with the oath of office
and the canons of professional ethics – a duty more than imperative during
these critical times when strong and disturbing criticisms are hurled at the
practice of law. The process of imbibing ethical standards can begin with the
simple act of openness and candor in dealing with clients, which would
progress thereafter towards the ideal that a lawyer’s vocation is not
synonymous with an ordinary business proposition but a serious matter of
public interest.

Therefore, Kollin is suspended from the practice of law for a period of

three (3) years. Pekas is suspended from the practice of law for a period of
six (6) months.