Filing Criminal Cases to Enforce Payment of Legal Fees is Unethical and Improper -SC

 Facts: 

Engr. Alex Cueto engaged Atty. Jose Jimenez, Jr. as a notary public for a construction agreement. After notarization, Atty. Jimenez demanded a notarial fee of P50,000. Cueto paid P30,000 in cash and issued a check for the P20,000 balance. The check was later dishonored for insufficient funds. Despite Cueto’s request not to deposit the check due to lack of funds (and because he himself had not been paid by the other party), Atty. Jimenez deposited it and, upon dishonor, filed a criminal complaint for violation of BP 22 (Bouncing Checks Law) against Cueto. In response, Cueto filed an administrative complaint against Jimenez for unethical conduct.

 Issues:  

Is it proper for a lawyer or notary public to file a criminal case to recover unpaid attorney’s or notarial fees?

Did Atty. Jimenez violate the Code of Professional Responsibility by filing a BP 22 case to collect his notarial fee?

Ruling and Reasoning:

The Supreme Court found Atty. Jimenez guilty of violating Canon 20, Rule 20.4 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which requires lawyers to avoid controversies with clients concerning compensation and to resort to judicial action only to prevent imposition, injustice, or fraud. The Court held that:

Filing a criminal case to recover attorney’s or notarial fees is improper. The act of filing a BP 22 case to collect the balance of a notarial fee was deemed highly improper and inconsistent with the dignity of the legal profession.

Remuneration is incidental to public service. The Court emphasized that the legal profession is imbued with public service, and remuneration is a mere incident.

Judicial action should be a last resort. Lawsuits with clients over fees should only be pursued to prevent injustice, imposition, or fraud—not as a means of collection for professional fees.

The Supreme Court reprimanded Atty. Jimenez for his conduct, underscoring that such actions undermine the integrity and dignity of the legal profession.See: Cueto v. Jimenez, Jr., Adm. Case No. 5798 (2005)

Doctrinal Impact

Ethical Boundaries: The case clarifies that lawyers must not use criminal proceedings as a tool for collecting professional fees. Instead, they should resolve such matters through civil actions, and only when necessary to prevent injustice or fraud.

Professional Dignity: The decision reinforces the principle that the legal profession is a public trust, and lawyers must act with candor, fairness, and loyalty, even in matters of compensation.

Ratio Decidendi:  

The core doctrine is that using criminal proceedings to recover attorney’s or notarial fees is unethical and contrary to the Code of Professional Responsibility.