Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 260 views

    Cueto v. Jimenez

    Uploaded by

    RAINBOW AVALANCHE
    Respondent, a notary public, notarized an agreement for complainant and charged a P50,000 fee. Complainant paid P30,000 cash and issued a check for the P20,000 balance that later bounced. Respondent then filed criminal charges against complainant for the bounced check. The IBP found that while the notary fee was reasonable, filing criminal charges to collect the fee violated rules prohibiting lawyers from using litigation to resolve fee disputes except to prevent fraud or injustice. Respondent was severely reprimanded.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Cueto v. Jimenez

    Uploaded by

    RAINBOW AVALANCHE
    260 views2 pages
    Respondent, a notary public, notarized an agreement for complainant and charged a P50,000 fee. Complainant paid P30,000 cash and issued a check for the P20,000 balance that later bounced. Respondent then filed criminal charges against complainant for the bounced check. The IBP found that while the notary fee was reasonable, filing criminal charges to collect the fee violated rules prohibiting lawyers from using litigation to resolve fee disputes except to prevent fraud or injustice. Respondent was severely reprimanded.

    Original Title

    093. Cueto v. Jimenez

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Respondent, a notary public, notarized an agreement for complainant and charged a P50,000 fee. Complainant paid P30,000 cash and issued a check for the P20,000 balance that later bounced. Respondent then filed criminal charges against complainant for the bounced check. The IBP found that while the notary fee was reasonable, filing criminal charges to collect the fee violated rules prohibiting lawyers from using litigation to resolve fee disputes except to prevent fraud or injustice. Respondent was severely reprimanded.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    260 views2 pages

    Cueto v. Jimenez

    Uploaded by

    RAINBOW AVALANCHE
    Respondent, a notary public, notarized an agreement for complainant and charged a P50,000 fee. Complainant paid P30,000 cash and issued a check for the P20,000 balance that later bounced. Respondent then filed criminal charges against complainant for the bounced check. The IBP found that while the notary fee was reasonable, filing criminal charges to collect the fee violated rules prohibiting lawyers from using litigation to resolve fee disputes except to prevent fraud or injustice. Respondent was severely reprimanded.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    CASE#093. CUETO V.

    JIMENEZ
    A.C. No. 5798
    January 20, 2005/ CORONA, J.:/DEL
    LEGAL ETHICS/ RULE 20.04
    LEGAL AID: respondents conduct in filing a criminal case for violation of BP 22 against
    complainant (when the check representing the P20,000 balance was dishonored for
    insufficient funds) was highly improper.
    FACTS: Before us is a complaint1 for disciplinary action against Atty. Jose Jimenez, Jr. filed by Engr.
    Alex B. Cueto with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), Commission on Bar Discipline.
    Engr. Alex Cueto alleged that sometime in October 1999 he engaged the services of respondent as
    notary public, the latter being the father of the owner of the building subject of the Construction
    Agreement2 to be notarized. He was then accompanied by a certain Val Rivera, the building
    administrator of respondents son Jose Jimenez III.
    After notarizing the agreement, respondent demanded P50,000 as notarial fee. Despite his surprise
    as to the cost of the notarial service, complainant informed respondent that he only had P30,000 in
    cash. Respondent persuaded complainant to pay the P30,000 and to issue a check for the
    remaining P20,000. Being unfamiliar with the cost of notarial services, complainant paid all his cash 3
    and issued a Far East Bank check dated December 28, 1999 for the balance.
    1vvphi1.nt

    Before the maturity date of the check, complainant requested respondent not to deposit the same for
    lack of sufficient funds. He also informed respondent that the latters son Jose Jimenez III had not
    yet paid his services as general contractor. Still, respondent deposited the check which was
    consequently dishonored for insufficient funds. Meanwhile, the P2,500,000 check issued by
    respondents son to complainant as initial payment pursuant to the Construction Agreement was
    itself dishonored for having been drawn against a closed account.
    Subsequently, Atty. Jimenez lodged a complaint for violation of BP 22 against Cueto before the City
    Prosecutors Office in Angeles City. The criminal case was tried in the Metropolitan Trial Court of
    Angeles City, Branch I.
    In the meantime, Cueto filed his own administrative complaint against Jimenez on November 16,
    2001. He alleged that Jimenez violated the Code of Professional Responsibility and Canons of
    Professional Ethics when he filed the criminal case against Cueto so he could collect the balance of
    his notarial fee.
    Pursuant to Rule 139-B, Section 6 of the Rules of Court, respondent Jimenez was required to
    answer the complaint filed against him.4 Despite notice, however, respondent failed to file his answer
    and to appear before the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline. After hearing the case ex-parte, the
    case was deemed submitted for resolution.
    IBP: REPRIMAND
    ISSUE: WON RESPONDENT VIOLATED RULE 20.04 OF CPR. YES
    HELD: WHEREFORE, Atty. Jose Jimenez, Jr. is hereby SEVERELY REPRIMANDED for violating
    Canon 20, Rule 20.4 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
    Complainants claim that respondents P50,000 notarial fee was exorbitant is debatable. As
    confirmed by the IBP, it is a recognized legal practice in real estate transactions and construction
    projects to base the amount of notarial fees on the contract price. Based on the amount demanded

    by respondent, the fee represented only 1% of the contract price of P5,000,000. It cannot be said
    therefore that respondent notary demanded more than a reasonable recompense for his service.
    We are also convinced that the two contracting parties implicitly agreed on the cost of Jimenezs
    notarial service. It was Cuetos responsibility to first inquire how much he was going to be charged
    for notarization. And once informed, he was free to accept or reject it, or negotiate for a lower
    amount. In this case, complainants concern that the other party to the construction agreement was
    the son of respondent notary and that his non-availment of respondents service might jeopardize
    the agreement, was purely speculative. There was no compulsion to avail of respondents service.
    Moreover, his failure to negotiate the amount of the fee was an implicit acquiescence to the terms of
    the notarial service. His subsequent act of paying in cash and in check all the more proved it.

    l^vvphi1.net

    However, we agree with the IBP that respondents conduct in filing a criminal case for violation of BP
    22 against complainant (when the check representing the P20,000 balance was dishonored for
    insufficient funds) was highly improper.
    Canon 20, Rule 20.4 of the Code of Professional Responsibility mandates that "[a] lawyer shall avoid
    controversies with clients concerning his compensation and shall resort to judicial action only to
    prevent imposition, injustice or fraud." Likewise, in Canon 14 of the Canons of Professional Ethics it
    states that, "[c]ontroversies with clients concerning compensation are to be avoided by the lawyer so
    far as shall be compatible with his self-respect and with his right to receive reasonable recompense
    for his service; and lawsuits with the clients should be resorted to only to prevent injustice, imposition
    or fraud."
    1a\^/

    You might also like