[G.R. No. L-14277. April 30, 1960.

]
MANUEL L. FERNANDEZ, Petitioner, v. HON. ELOY B. BELLO, Judge Court of First Instance of
Pangasinan, Respondent.
Manuel L. Fernandez in his own behalf.
Solicitor General Edilberto Barot and Solicitor Jorge R. Coquia for Respondent

FACTS:

Petition for certiorari with injunction was filed by Atty. Manuel L. Fernandez to annul two orders dated
June 16 and July 29, 1958, of the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan, Hon. Eloy B. Bello, presiding.

1. The first order reprimands petitioner for his improper conduct as counsel in Special Proceedings
No. 3931, entitled "Guardianship of the Minors Federico and Pedro both surnamed Perreyras,
Timotea Perreyras, petitioner-guardian," orders him to return to the guardian within 15 days the
sum of P200.00 collected by him, and causes a copy of the order to be sent to the Supreme
Court for corresponding disciplinary action on the petitioner.

2. The second order denies petitioner’s motion for reconsideration and warns him not to use
improper terms in his pleadings.

The two orders were brough about by the facilitation of Atty. Fernandez of the institutionalization of
Special Proceedings No. 3931, appointing Timotea Perreyras as guardian over the persons and properties
of her brothers, Frederico and Pedro who were then minors.

Upon her appointment, she petitioned the court for an Authority to Sell a Nipa land owned with the wards
for the purpose of paying an obligation due to a certain Maximiano Umañgay. The request was granted
by Judge Villamor, and on August 24, 1951, a deed of sale, prepared and notarized by Atty. Manuel L.
Fernandez, was executed by the guardian in favor of Maximiano Umañgay for the sum of P1,000. This
sale was approved by Judge Pasicolan on December 17, 1952.

The nipa land sold by the guardian had previously been sold with right to repurchase to Ricardo Perreyras
and Maximiano Umañgay by Florentino Perreyras, father (now deceased) of the guardian and the wards.
The interest in the land of Ricardo Perreyras and Maximiano Umañgay were, in turn, sold for P200.00 to
Atty. Manuel L. Fernandez. Of the purchase price of P1,000, P200.00 was paid to Atty. Manuel L.
Fernandez, redemption price of the nipa land and as assignee of the credit in favor of Maximiano
Umañgay and Ricardo Perreyras. The other P200.00 was given to said attorney, in payment of his legal
fees for services rendered by him as counsel of the father of the wards in a civil case. However, the
record does not show that these payments were authorized by the court.

ISSUES:

1. W/N the collection of Attorneys’ fees by Atty. Manuel Fernandez and taking the same from the
sale of the property of his client (who availed of his services in the claiming of her Guardianship
over a property co-owned with Minors Federico and Pedro) allowed even without court approval?

2. W/N the charge of “contempt of court” issued by Hon. Eloy B. Belo thereby ordering him to
return the fees he collected from his client valid?

3. W/N the court’s charges against Atty. Manuel Fernandez which was done via court orders
acceptable with the requirements of the law.

RULING:

1. According to the Supreme Court, the lawyer is charged with the knowledge that the property and
effects of the wards are under the control and supervision of the court, and that they cannot be
taken and expended without the latter’s permission, more especially so when the money taken
was to pay the debt of the father of the wards. However, the duty of courts is not alone to see
that lawyers act in a proper and lawful manner; it is also their duty to see that lawyers are paid
their just and lawful fees. The courts cannot deny them that right; there is no law that authorizes
them to do so

2. The opinion of a judge as to the capacity of a lawyer is not the basis of the right to a
lawyer’s fee. It is the contract between the lawyer and client and the nature of the
service rendered. In this case, the Honorable Judge was also questioned for
maligning Atty. Andres in characterizing the act of the petitioner as anomalous and
unbecoming and in charging petitioner of obtaining his fee "through maneuvers of documents
from the guardian-petitioner. Futher, the Supreme Court said that if anyone is to blame for the
 language used by the petitioner, it is the judge himself who has made insulting remarks in his
orders, which must have provoked petitioner, and the judgehas nothing to blame but himself. If
a judge desires not to be insulted he should start using temperate language himself; he who
sows the wind will reap a storm.

3. According to the Supreme Court, Where the court motu proprio preferred the charges in its
orders and the petitioner was duly advised thereof and was given an opportunity to file an
answer, there is sufficient compliance with the requirements of law.

Legal Basis:
CANON 16 - A LAWYER SHALL HOLD IN TRUST ALL MONEYS AND PROPERTIES OF HIS CLIENT
THAT MAY COME INTO HIS PROFESSION.
Rule 16.03 - A lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of his client when due or upon
demand. However, he shall have a lien over the funds and may apply so much thereof as may be
necessary to satisfy his lawful fees and disbursements, giving notice promptly thereafter to his
client. He shall also have a lien to the same extent on all judgments and executions he has
secured for his client as provided for in the Rules of Court.