8/10/2019 Lemoine v Balon

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/lemoine-v-balon 1/1

LEMOINE v BALON

FACTS:-  Lemoine is a French national who filed an insurance claim with Metropolitan Insurance.

-  His friend Jesus Garcia arranged for the engagement of Balon’s services as his counsel -  Balon advised Lemoine that he was charging 25% of the actual amount to being recovered payable upon successful

recovery. An advance payment of P50,000 to be deducted from whatever amount would be successfully collected.P1,000 as appearance and conference fee for each and every court hearing and legal expenses and other miscellaneouswill be charged to Lemoine’s account which would be reimbursed upon presentment of account. Lemoine never gave hisconsent as to the fee.

-  Lemoine signed an undated Special Power of Attorney authorizing Balon to bring any action against MetropolitanInsurance for the satisfaction of Lemoine’s claim as well as to negotiate, sign, compromise, encash and receive payments

-  Metropolitan Insurance offered to settle Lemoine’s claim and Balon confirmed his acceptance of the offer-  December 1998, Metropolitan Insurance issued a China Bank check payable to Lemoine in the amount of P525,000 which

was received by Balon-  When Lemoine asked Balon as to the status of the case, Balon answered that Metropolitan Insurance was offering

P350,000 for settlement which Lemoine suggested that Balon accept to avoid litigation-  December 1999, Lemoine visited the office of Metropolitan Insurance to ask on the status of the case and it answered that

the case was long settled via a check given to Balon.-  Balon acknowledge that he is in possession of the check and that he is keeping the check as attorney’s lien pending

Lemoine’s payment of his attorney’s fee equivalent to 50% of the entire amount collected. He also threatened Lemoinethat he will not hesitate to make proper representation with the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation, DOLE and BIR ifLemoine will make any trouble to Balon and that he has good network with the mentioned agencies.

- Balon later claimed that he gave P233,000 to Garcia on the representation of Lemoine. No written memorandum of theturn-over was made because Garcia was a co-Rotarian and co-attorney of Balon

-  Balon was in possession of the said check for 5 yearsISSUE:

-  W/N Balon violated the Code of Professional ResponsibilityHELD:

- YES! And he was ordered disbarred by the SC

-  The lawyer’s continuing exercise of his retaining lien presupposes that the client agrees with the amount of attorney’s feesto e charged. In case of disagreement, however, the lawyer must not arbitrarily apply the funds in his possession to thepayment of his fees. He can file the necessary action with the proper court to fix the fees

-  Before receiving the check, he proposes a 25% attorney’s fees, after receiving the check, he was already asking for 50%.-  under the Code of Professional Responsibility, a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful acts , must observe fairness in all his

dealings with his client and must hold in trust all moneys and properties of his clienta lawyer who practices deceit in his dealings with his client not only violates his duty of fidelity loyalty and devotion to the client’scause but also degrades himself and besmirches the name of an honorable profession.