Legal Ethics Canon 3 Sec 54-56

Written Report

Roberto Aguila Jr.

Canon 3, Section 54 - Termination of Engagement By The Client

The lawyer-client relationship engagement may be terminated by the client at any time
upon loss of trust and confidence.

The termination of the engagement shall not relieve the client from full payment of all
professional fees due to the lawyer. If the engagement has been reduced to writing, the
lawyer shall be entitled to recover from the client the full compensation stipulated,
unless found by the court, tribunal or other government agency to be unconscionable or
unreasonable under Canon III, Section 41 of the CPRA.

For the payment of the just compensation, the lawyer shall have a charging lien upon all
judgments for the payment of money, and executions issued in pursuance of such
judgment, rendered in the case where the lawyer’s services had been retained by the
client.

This section is in consonant with Rule 138, Sec. 24 of the Revised Rules of Court:

“An attorney shall be entitled to have and recover from his client no more than a
reasonable compensation for his services, with a view to the importance of the subject
matter of the controversy, the extent of the services rendered, and the professional
standing of the attorney. No court shall be bound by the opinion of attorneys as expert
witnesses as to the proper compensation, but may disregard such testimony and base its
conclusion on its own professional knowledge. A written contract for services shall
control the amount to be paid therefor unless found by the court to be unconscionable or
unreasonable.”
Canon 3, Section 55 – Termination of Engagement Upon Death

The death of the lawyer or client shall terminate the lawyer-client relationship. The
death of such lawyer shall not extinguish the lawyer-client engagement between the law
firm and the client handled by such law firm.

This is elaborated by the Supreme Court in the following cases:

Heirs of Maximo Regoso vs Court of Appeals and Belen Cruz Regoso (G.R. No.
91879 July 6, 1992)

Maximo Regoso, the defendant in a property partition case, died during the proceedings,
before the trial court rendered its decision. His lawyer proceeded to file a notice of
appeal without informing the court of Regoso's death and without having Regoso's heirs
substituted as parties.

The Supreme Court held that the death of a client generally terminates the lawyer-client
relationship and, consequently, the lawyer's authority to represent the deceased. The
lawyer has a duty to promptly inform the court of their client's death and to facilitate the
substitution of the deceased with their legal representatives. Wherefore, the petition for
review is hereby denied.

Rafael Amatorio vs People (G.R. No. 150453, February 14, 2003)

Rafael Amatorio was convicted of homicide and appealed the Regional Trial Court's
decision to the Court of Appeals. His lawyer, Atty. Joelito T. Barrera, died while the
appeal was pending.

The Court of Appeals subsequently affirmed the trial court's decision.

Amatorio claimed he was not informed of the Court of Appeals' decision and only
learned of his lawyer's death later, preventing him from filing a timely motion for
reconsideration.

The core issue is the consequences of a lawyer's death on the client's right to pursue their
appeal.
The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeals' decision. It is a settled rule that relief
will not be granted to a party who seeks to be relieved from the effects of the judgment
when the loss of the remedy at law was due to his own negligence, or to a mistaken
mode of procedure.

The Court held that the death of a lawyer terminates the lawyer-client relationship, but
the law firm is deemed responsible to deal with the cases that the deceased lawyer was
handling and that the rules regarding the filing of motions for extensions of time, must
be followed. Wherefore, the petition is denied.
Canon 3, Section 56 – Accounting and Turn Over Upon Termination of
Engagement

A lawyer who is discharged from or terminates the engagement shall, subject to an

attorney’s lien, immediately render a full account of and turn over all documents,
evidence, funds, and properties belonging to the client.

The lawyer shall cooperate with the chosen successor in the orderly transfer of the legal
matter, including all information necessary for the efficient handling of the client’s
representation.

A lawyer shall have a lien upon the funds, documents, and papers of the client which
have lawfully come into his or her possession and may retain the same until the fair and
reasonable fees and disbursements have been paid, and may apply such funds to the
satisfaction thereof.

This section reiterated Rule 22.02 of the old Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR)
as regards the withdrawal of service of a lawyer. To wit:

“A lawyer who withdraws or is discharged shall, subject to a retainer lien, immediately

turn over all papers and property to which the client is entitled, and shall cooperate
with his successor in the orderly transfer of the matter, including all information
necessary for the proper handling of the matter.”

Additionally, Rule 138, Section 37 of the Rules of Court elucidated the matter on
attorney’s lien:

“An attorney shall have a lien upon the funds, documents and papers of his client which
have lawfully come into his possession and may retain the same until his lawful fees and
disbursements have been paid, and may apply such funds to the satisfaction thereof.

He shall also have a lien to the same extent upon all judgments for the payment of
money, and executions issued in pursuance of such judgments, which he has secured in a
litigation of his client, from and after the time when he shall have the caused a statement
of his claim of such lien to be entered upon the records of the court rendering such
judgment, or issuing such execution, and shall have the caused written notice thereof to
be delivered to his client and to the adverse party; and he shall have the same right and
power over such judgments and executions as his client would have to enforce his lien
and secure the payment of his just fees and disbursements.”
What is an attorney’s lien?

An attorney's lien is a legal right that allows a lawyer to secure payment for their
services. Essentially, it's a claim against a client's property or the proceeds of a legal
action to ensure that the lawyer is compensated for their work.

Types of Attorney’s Lien

Retaining Lien

The retaining lien is the right of the attorney to retain the funds, documents, and papers
of his client which have lawfully come into his possession until his lawful fees and
disbursements have been paid and to apply such funds to the satisfaction thereof.

Charging Lien

The enforcement of a charging lien can only take place after a final money judgment has
been rendered in favor of the client. The lien only attaches to the money judgment due to
the client and is contingent on the final determination of the main case. Until the money
judgment has become final and executory, enforcement of the lien is premature.

The Supreme Court explained in the following cases how to properly record an
attorney’s lien:

Viuda De Caiña vs Victoriano (G.R. No. L-12905. February 26, 1959)

The petitioners, the widow and children of Valeriano Caiña, were involved in a legal
dispute concerning a parcel of land. Atty. Flaviano T. Dalisay represented one of the
petitioners in an ejectment case, which resulted in a favorable judgment. Atty. Dalisay
then sought to annotate his attorney's lien on the title of the property, claiming unpaid
legal fees.

The attorney's lien in question was a charging lien, meaning he sought to claim a right
over the judgment obtained in the litigation. The core issue revolved around whether this
lien could be validly annotated on the property's Transfer Certificate of Title.

The Supreme Court held that while an attorney has the right to a charging lien on
judgments for monetary payments, this does not extend to the right to annotate the lien
directly onto the property title itself. The proper procedure is to record the lien within
the court records of the case where the judgment was obtained.
The Court ruled that the annotation of the attorney’s lien on the property title exceeded
the judicial authority. Hence, a charging lien allows an attorney to claim a right to the
proceeds of a judgment, but not to directly encumber the client's property title.

Wherefore, the petition is granted.

Navarez vs Abrogar (G.R. No. 191641, September 02, 2015)

Edmundo Navarez engaged the services of Atty. Manuel Abrogar III for an estate
settlement case. He later terminated Atty. Abrogar's services, leading to a dispute over
attorney's fees. Abrogar filed a motion to register his attorney's lien. The RTC ordered
Navarez to pay Abrogar's attorney's fees without a full trial.

The Supreme Court held that while an attorney has a right to a charging lien on money
judgments they secure for their client, there are specific procedural requirements for its
enforcement.

For the lien to be enforceable, the attorney must have caused a statement of their claim
to be entered in the record of the case while the court has jurisdiction and a written
notice of their claim to be delivered to the client and the adverse party.

However, the registration of the claim, does not mean the amount is automatically
accepted. If the amount is disputed, then a full trial is necessary. The registration of the
lien is different from the enforcement of the lien. When enforcing the lien, the attorney
must pay the correct docket fees, as this is equivalent to filing a new action.

The Supreme Court also held that when the amount of the attorney's fees is disputed, the
client has the right to a full trial to present evidence. The RTC's order to pay the fees
without a hearing was deemed a grave abuse of discretion.

Wherefore, the petition was granted.