Lemoine v Balon 1.

Lemoine was pursuing an insurance complaint against metropolitan insurance (he had insured his vehicle which was lot). He was encountering problems pursuing this claim, so he arranged for the engagement of the services of Balon. Balon was charging 25% of the amount actually recovered payable upon the successful recovery, with advanced payment of 50k and 1k appearance fee for each hearing. 2. When metropolitan insurance offered to settle the claim, respondent accepted its offer of 75% of the policy coverage 525k. Lemoine left for France but before he left he signed an undated special power of attorney allowing Lemoine to bring any action against Metropolitan Insurance for the satisfaction of the complaint as well as to negotiate, sign and compromise, encash and receive payment. Metro insurance issued a check worth 525k as full settlement. 3. Garcia (friend of plaintiff) told Lemoine that Balon had told him that the claim was still pending and that it was subject to negotiation and that it had offered 350k or 50% of the policy. Lemoine suggested the acceptance of the settlement to avoid a protracted litigation. 4. When Lemoine returned to the philippines and paid a visit to the Metro insurance he was informed that the claim had been settled a year prior. He then proceeded to the office of Balon to demand an explanation, however Balon was not there. They had a phone conversation where he demanded the return of the proceeds of the claim. Balon claimed that he had in his possession the proceeds but that there was a lien for his fees on pending payment of his attorneys fees at 50% of the amount collected. In a letter there were veiled threats at deportation and investigation by the NBI DOLE and BIR where Balon is supposedly well connected. Issue: w/n Balon violated the CPR? IBP found him guilty of violating the CPR and recommended that he be disbarred and that he immediately turn over the sum of 475k (525 minus 50k) It was found that there was no professional contract where the parties agreed on a 25% fee much less a 50% one. The claims of Balon are belied by a letter Lemoine had evidencing that he had rejected the proposal that the fee be 25%. Balons clams are without merit and his reasoning that the complainant is an alien without a valid work permi t and might leave the country at any time without settling his obligations does not hold water. He is guilty of violating Canon 16, rule .01 .02 and .03. His failure to account promptly for the funds he received and held for the benefit of his client was an act of professional misconduct. IT was obviously done on purpose and with great deceit as Lemoine was kept in the dark about the status of the release of the check. Arellano v Mijares 1. Arellano engaged the services of Mijares for the purpose of securing a CT covering a portion of the dried up Estero de San Miguel which the university was occupying. Mijares was allegedly given all of the documents needed to accomplish the work. Afterwards he requested that he be given 500k on top of his attorneys fees to cover facilitation and processing. He promised to give the money back in case the work was not completed. 2. He claimed that he had succeeded in titling the property as he had the approval of the MMDA and DENR. When Arellano requested for the copy of the approval of the MMDA he failed to comply and stopped speaking to them. Arellano withdrew all its case entrusted to him and demanded the return of 500k. 3. Mijares alleges that he required 1.5M of facilitation costs (MMDA, DENR, LRA). He claimed that DENR Regional Director had told him that Undersec Lacuna was the person to talk to about MMDA endorsement. He said he gave 500k to Lacuna. issue is Mijares guity of misappropriating 500k of his client? Yes. The only evidence on record that the court can consider is Arellanos evidence that Mijares received 500k for expenses towards the titling of the property. He refused to return the money despite repeated demands. His claim that he gave the money to Lacuna is not availing. Had he actually given the money and had he been authorized to do so, why did he keep silent about it? He offered no evidence or explanation at all to Arellano. He admitted underoath to bribing a government official. Disbarred. Arellano is not entitled to recover the money because it knowingly gave money to spend for bribing officials. De Chavez blanco v Lumasag 1. Blanco alleges that she is a resident of the US along with her husband and that she owns two parces of land in QC with an aggregate area st of 800 square meters and that she authorized Lumasag (1 cousin of her husband to sell the lots) 2. Lumasag claimed to have sold only one lot for 320k deducting 38k for taxes and commissions, he remitted the 281k balance to a certain Johnnes as per instruction. He manifested to Blanco that the other lot had not been sold as there were squatters on it. Blanco thereafter discovered that the two lots had been sold in 1990 to the spouses martinez for 1.1M php. 3. When confronted with these facts in a letter, Lumasag paid no attention. While he admitted the sale thereafter, he never tendered or offered to tender the proceeds of such to the Blancos. Despite repeated demands he did not remit 838k (total amount due) 4. It is also noted that complainant says that the SPA is forged because the signatures are not those of her and her husband and that they could not have acknowledged the document before a notary as they were not in the Philippines. Lumasag Claims that 2 lots were sold for 563k only. Issue: Should Lumasag be disbarred? No. Just suspension. Lumasag s already 72 years old. He should however pay the amount of 240k. The claim of 1.1m selling price was unsubstantiated. 6 month suspention.