SESBRENO V. CA (ETHICS)

To insure payment of his professional fees and reimbursement of his lawful disbursements in keeping with his dignity as an officer of the court, the law creates in favor of a lawyer a lien, not only upon the funds, documents and papers of his client which have lawfully come into his possession until what is due him has been paid but also a lien upon all judgments for the payment of money and executions issued pursuant to such judgments rendered in the case wherein his services have been retained by the client.

A CHARGING LIEN is an equitable right to have the fees and costs due to the lawyer for services in a suit secured to him out of the judgment or recovery in that particular suit. It is based on the natural equity that the plaintiff should not be allowed to appropriate the whole of a judgment in his favor without paying thereout for the services of his attorney in obtaining such judgment.

In this case, the existence of petitioner's charging lien is undisputed since it was properly registered in the records. The parties even acknowledged its existence in their compromise agreement. however, a problem arose when the respondents directly paid in full the camineros' money claims and did not withhold that portion which corresponds to petitioner's fees.

When the judgment debt was fully satisfied, petitioner could have enforced his lien either against his clients (the camineros herein) or against the judgment debtor (the respondents herein). The clients, upon receiving satisfaction of their claims without paying their lawyer, should have held the proceeds in trust for him to the extent of the amount of his recorded lien, because after the charging lien had attached, the attorney is, to the extent of such lien, regarded as an equitable assignee of the judgment or funds produces by his efforts. The judgment debtors may likewise be held responsible for their failure to withhold from the camineros the amount of attorney's fees due the petitioner.

In the instant case, the petitioner rightly commenced an action against both his clients and the judgment debtors. However, at the instance of the petitioner himself, the complaint against his clients was withdrawn on the ground that he had settled his differences with them, He maintained the case against respondents because according to him, the computation of the camineros' money claims should have been based on the national and not provincial wage rate. Thus, petitioner insists that the respondents should be made liable for the difference.

Petitioner's act in withdrawing the case against the camineros and agreeing to settle their dispute may be considered a waiver of his right to the lien. No rule will allow a lawyer to collect from his client and then collect anew from the judgment debtor, except perhaps on a claim for a bigger amount, which as earlier discussed, is baseless.

Lawyering is not a moneymaking venture and lawyers are not merchants. Law advocacy is not capital that yields profits. The returns it births are simple rewards for a job done or service rendered. It is impressed with public interest, for which it is subject to state regulation.

Considering that petitioner's claim of higher attorney's fees is baseless and considering further that he had settled his case as against his former clients, we cannot sustain his right to damages for breach of contract against the respondents. although we sustain his status to institute the instant case, we cannot render a favorable judgment because there was no breach of contract. Even if there was such a breach, he had waived his right to claim against the respondents by accepting payment and/or absolving from liability those who were primarily liable to him. Thus, no liability can imputed to the province of Cebu or to the respondent public officials, either in their personal or official capacities.