Professional Documents
Culture Documents
CANON 20
*Leviste vs CA The issue in this case is whether or not
an attorney who was engaged on a contingent fee basis
may, in order to collect his fees, prosecute an appeal
despite his client's refusal to appeal the decision of the
trial court. The private complainant, Ms Del Rosario, sent
him a letter stating that she was terminating his services
as her counsel due to conflicting interest. Because the
respondent, being the brother-in-law of the lessee of the
subject property, sought to be ejected by the private
complainant and the other parties in the probate
proceeding. The petitioner alleged that he is a right to
accept for his client Del Rosario to the extent if 35%
thereof the devise in her favor to protect his contingency
The argument is devoid of
attorneys fees.
merit. Article 1052 of the Civil Code does
not apply to this case. That legal
provision protects the creditor of a
repudiating heir. Petitioner is not a
creditor of Rosa del Rosario. The
payment of his fees is contingent and
dependent upon the successful probate
of the holographic will. Since the
petition for probate was dismissed by
the lower court, the contingency did not
occur. Attorney Leviste is not entitled to
his fee.
*Licudan vs CA
CANON 21
*Suntay vs Suntay This Complaint for disbarment was
filed by Federico C. Suntay against his nephew, Atty.
Rafael G. Suntay, alleging that respondent was his legal
counsel, adviser and confidant who was privy to all his
legal, financial and political affairs from 1956 to 1964.
However, since they parted ways because of politics and
respondent's overweening political ambitions in 1964,
respondent had been filing complaints and cases against
complainant, making use of confidential information
gained while their attorney-client relationship existed,
and otherwise harassing him at every turn.