7/25/2019 Champertous contract

1/1

A.C. No. 9091, December 11, 2013

CONCHITA A. BALTAZAR, ROLANDO SANPEDRO, ALICIA EULALIO-RAOS,SOLEDAD A. !A"ARDO AND

ENCARNACION A.!ERNANDEZ, Complainants,

v.ATT#. "UAN B. BA$EZ, "R.,Respondent.

Complainants are engaged the legal

services of Atty. Baez, Jr. in connection

with the recovery of their three parcels ofland located in Bataan with subdivision

developer Fevidal.

Complainants signed a contract of legal

services, where they would not payacceptance and appearance fees to Atty.

Baez Jr., but that the docet fees would

instead be shared by the parties.

!nder the contract, complainants wouldpay him "#$ of whatever would berecovered of the properties. %ater,however, complainants terminated hisservices and entered into an amicablesettlement with Fevidal. Atty. Baez, Jr.opposed the withdrawal of their complaint

in court. &hus, complainants 'led a caseagainst him alleging that the motion ofAtty. Baez, Jr. for the recording of hisattorney(s charging lien was thepreventing them from en)oying the fruits

of their property as it is *clothed with legalproblems+. n their complaint, they claimthat respondent violated Canons -, -, -",-/ and #.

0ection 1, 2ule -3/ of the 2ules of Courtallows an attorney to intervene in a caseto protect his rights concerning thepayment of his compensation. Accordingto the discretion of the court, the attorneyshall have a lien upon all )udgments forthe payment of money rendered in a casein which his services have been retainedby the client. 4ence, it was found that hedid not violate canon #.

n this case, however, the contract forlegal services is in the nature of achampertous contract 5 an agreement

whereby an attorney undertaes to paythe e6penses of the proceedings toenforce the client(s rights in e6change forsome bargain to have a part of the thing indispute. 0uch contracts are contrary topublic policy and are thus void orine6istent. &hey are also contrary toCanon -1.#7 of the Code of 8rofessional2esponsibility, which states that lawyersshall not lend money to a client, e6ceptwhen in the interest of )ustice, they haveto advance necessary e6penses in a legalmatter they are handling for the client.

&hus, the Court held that Atty. Baez, Jr.violated Canon -1.#7 of the Code of8rofessional 2esponsibility.