Case Digest: HSIEH v. ATTY. SALVADOR QUIMPO and ATTY. NANCY QUIMPO

ROSEMARIE L. HSIEH v. ATTY. SALVADOR QUIMPO and ATTY. NANCY QUIMPO

511 SCRA 184 (2006)

A lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and properties of his client that may come into his possession.

Rosemarie L. Hsieh, together with Pilar Cabuslay, was arrested for drug trafficking and possession of Marijuana during a buy-bust operation within the vicinity of Manila. Hsieh’s car, a Mitsubishi Eclipse which she boarded in going to the site of the operation was impounded by the police authorities and she was detained at the Manila City Jail.

Hsieh secured the services of spouses Attorneys Salvador and Nancy Quimpo who represented her and Cabuslay during the inquest and preliminary injunction of the case.

Due to insufficient of funds, Hsieh authorized them to sell the car by signing a Deed of Sale the complete of which were left in blank. Spouses Quimpo failed to appear in her behalf, forcing her to secure the services of another lawyer and when she demanded the return of the car, they refused claiming that it would serve as payment for their legal services.

Hsieh later found out that the car was already registered in the name of lawyers Quimpo by virtue of the Deed of Sale. When she was able to regain possession of the car, it was seized by the Traffic Management and charged her with carnapping.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the lawyers Salvador and Nancy Quimpo violated the Canons of Professional Responsibility when they acquired the car from Rosemarie as a payment for their legal services

HELD:

The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) found that there was a breach of trust on the part of the spouses. They took advantage of the fact that the Deed of Sale of Motor Vehicle was already signed in blank.

As the breach of trust reposed upon the spouses constitutes a violation of the Canon 16 of the Canons of Professional Responsibility which reads that ―a lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and properties of his client that may come into his possession.‖

According to the court, although a lawyer’s lien over a client’s property in satisfaction of his lawful fees and disbursements is recognized by the Court, the same cannot be exercised haphazardly.