Ui v. Bonifacio A.C. No. 3319. June 8, 2000. De Leon, Jr., J.

FACTS:

Complainant Leslie Ui filed an administraive complaint for disbarment against Aty. Iris Bonifacio
for allegedly carryin on an immoral relationship with Carlos L. Ui, complainant’s husband. It is
respondent’s contention, however, that when she discovered Carlos Ui’ true civil status, she cut
off all her ties with him.

ISSUE:

WON respondent is guilty of immoral conduct.

RULING:

No. For immorality connotes conduct that shows indifference to the moral norms of society and
the opinion of good and respectable members of the community. Respondent’s act of immediately
distancing herself from Carlos Ui upon discovering his true civil status belies just that alleged
moral indifference and proves that she had no intention of flaunting the law and the high moral
standard of the legal profession/ Complainant’s bare assertions to the contrary deserve no credit.
JUDGE MARIBETH MANAHAN vs. ATTY. RODOLFO FLORES

A.C. No. 8954, November 13, 2013, 709 SCRA 297

FACTS:

Atty. Flores was the counsel for the defendant in a civil case before the sala of Judge Manahan.

During the preliminary conference, Atty. Flores entered his appearance and was given time to file
a Pre-Trial Brief.

Later, Atty. Flores filed his Pre-Trial Brief but without proof of MCLE compliance hence it was
expunged from the records without prejudice to the filing of another Pre-Trial Brief containing the
required MCLE compliance, however, Atty. Flores asked for ten (10) days to submit proof.

The preliminary conference was set several times and Atty. Flores was given several occasions to
submit the brief with the proper MCLE compliance.

On the final instance, instead of submitting the promised proof of MCLE compliance, Atty. Flores
filed a letter stating that he was no longer representing the defendant. Such was stated in what was
deemed as intemperate language.

ISSUE:

Whether Atty. Flores is guilty of disrespect to court orders.

HELD:

YES. Court orders are to be respected not because the judges who issue them should be respected,
but because of the respect and consideration that should be extended to the judicial branch of the
Government.

Atty. Flores failed to obey the trial court’s order to submit proof of his MCLE compliance
notwithstanding the several opportunities given him. Furthermore, he used intemperate language
in his pleadings and dealing with the court.

As an officer of the court, he must be circumspect in his language and should have abstained from
scandalous, offensive or menacing language or behavior before the court.
AUGUSTO M. AQUINO v. HON. ISMAEL P. CABASAR, et al.,

G.R. No. 191470, 26 January 2015, THIRD DIVISION (Peralta, J.)

Petitioner's failure to pay the docket fees pertinent to his motion should not be considered as
having divested the court a quo's jurisdiction.

Atty. Angel T. Domingo (now deceased) contracted with Augusto M. Aquino to represent him in
an Agrarian proceeding concerning his property situated in Guimba, Nueva Ecija. Aquino
successfully prosecuted the Agrarian case from the up to the Supreme Court. For the legal services
he rendered, Aquino filed a Motion for Approval of Charging Attorney’s Lien and for the Order
of Payment. The said Motion was denied by Judge Cabasar ratiocinating that the court has no
jurisdiction over the motion for approval of charging attorney’s lien, it having been filed after the
judgment became final and executory and that there was failure to pay the corresponding docket
fees.

ISSUE:

Should the Motion for Approval of Charging Attorney’s Lien of Aquino be denied by reason of
lack of jurisdiction?

RULING:

No. In the case of Rosario, Jr. v. De Guzman, the Court clarified a similar issue and discussed the
two concepts of attorney’s fees – that is, ordinary and extraordinary. In its ordinary sense, it is the
reasonable compensation paid to a lawyer by his client for legal services rendered. In its
extraordinary concept, it is awarded by the court to the successful litigant to be paid by the losing
party as indemnity for damages. The two concepts of attorney’s fees are similar in other respects.
They both require, as a prerequisite to their grant, the intervention of or the rendition of
professional services by a lawyer. As a client may not be held liable for counsel fees in favor of
his lawyer who never rendered services, so too may a party be not held liable for attorney’s fees
as damages in favor of the winning party who enforced his rights without the assistance of counsel.
Moreover, both fees are subject to judicial control and modification. And the rules governing the
determination of their reasonable amount are applicable in one as in the other.

Similarly, in the instant case, the attorney’s fees being claimed by Aquino is the
compensation for professional services rendered, and not an indemnity for damages. Aquino is
claiming payment from Domingo for the successful outcome of the agrarian case which he
represented. We see no valid reason why Judge Cabasar cannot pass upon a proper petition to
determine attorney's fees considering that it is already familiar with the nature and the extent of
Aquino’s legal services. If we are to follow the rule against multiplicity of suits, then with more
reason that Aquino’s motion should not be dismissed as the same is in effect incidental to the main
case.

The Court is, likewise, unconvinced that the court a quo did not acquire jurisdiction over
the motion solely due to non-payment of docket fees. Aquino’s failure to pay the docket fees
pertinent to his motion should not be considered as having divested the court a quo's jurisdiction.
The Court notes that, in this case,there was no showing that Aquino intended to evade the payment
of docket fees as in fact he manifested willingness to pay the same should it be necessary.

Likewise, pursuant to the ruling in Sun Insurance Office, Ltd. (SIOL) v. Asuncion, should
there be unpaid docket fees, the same should be considered as a lien on the judgment. Thus, even
on the assumption that additional docket fees are required as a consequence of petitioner's motion,
its non-payment will not result in the court’s loss of jurisdiction over the case.