Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 96 views

    TANHUECO Vs DE DUMO, AM No 1437, April 25 1989

    Uploaded by

    Markus Tran Moralde
    De Dumo refused to return money and documents collected from debtors that were entrusted to him by his client Hilaria Tanhueco. Tanhueco offered De Dumo a 15% contingent fee to collect debts from her debtors, but De Dumo claimed they agreed to a 50% fee. De Dumo admitted keeping P12,000 he collected and applying it to his fee. The court found De Dumo's 50% contingent fee to be grossly excessive and reduced it to 15%, suspended him from practice for 6 months, and ordered him to return the excess fee collected.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    TANHUECO Vs DE DUMO, AM No 1437, April 25 1989

    Uploaded by

    Markus Tran Moralde
    96 views1 page
    De Dumo refused to return money and documents collected from debtors that were entrusted to him by his client Hilaria Tanhueco. Tanhueco offered De Dumo a 15% contingent fee to collect debts from her debtors, but De Dumo claimed they agreed to a 50% fee. De Dumo admitted keeping P12,000 he collected and applying it to his fee. The court found De Dumo's 50% contingent fee to be grossly excessive and reduced it to 15%, suspended him from practice for 6 months, and ordered him to return the excess fee collected.

    Original Description:

    Pale

    Original Title

    . TANHUECO vs DE DUMO, AM No 1437, April 25 1989

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    De Dumo refused to return money and documents collected from debtors that were entrusted to him by his client Hilaria Tanhueco. Tanhueco offered De Dumo a 15% contingent fee to collect debts from her debtors, but De Dumo claimed they agreed to a 50% fee. De Dumo admitted keeping P12,000 he collected and applying it to his fee. The court found De Dumo's 50% contingent fee to be grossly excessive and reduced it to 15%, suspended him from practice for 6 months, and ordered him to return the excess fee collected.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    96 views1 page

    TANHUECO Vs DE DUMO, AM No 1437, April 25 1989

    Uploaded by

    Markus Tran Moralde
    De Dumo refused to return money and documents collected from debtors that were entrusted to him by his client Hilaria Tanhueco. Tanhueco offered De Dumo a 15% contingent fee to collect debts from her debtors, but De Dumo claimed they agreed to a 50% fee. De Dumo admitted keeping P12,000 he collected and applying it to his fee. The court found De Dumo's 50% contingent fee to be grossly excessive and reduced it to 15%, suspended him from practice for 6 months, and ordered him to return the excess fee collected.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 1

    .

    TANHUECO vs DE DUMO, AM No 1437, April 25 1989


    FACTS:
    Hilaria Tanhueco filed a petition for disbarment against Atty. Justiniano de Dumo for his refusal to remit
    her money collected from debtors and refusal to return documents entrusted to him as a counsel in
    certain collection cases. Tanhueco allegedly offered De Dumo 15% of what he may be able to collect
    from debtors but De Dumo responded that in their agreement he gets 50% of what he may be able to
    collect as contingent fee. De Dumo also admitted he did not turn over the P 12, 000.00 he collected and
    applying it instead as part of his attorney’s fee.

    ISSUE:
    Whether or not De Dumo’s contingent fee is grossly excessive
    HELD:
    De Dumo’s contingent fee is grossly excessive because 50% is more than half of the total amount due
    from Tanhueco’s debtors. His action is believed to be fraudulent because he took advantage of his client
    who is an old and sickly woman. Canon 20 of the CPR states that: A lawyer shall charge only fair and
    reasonable fees. Attorney’s fee which is found out to be unconscionable or unreasonable is subject to
    court’s modification. A lawyer as an officer of the court has the duty to assist in the impartial
    administration of justice between parties, and hence, the fees should be subject to judicial control. Thus,
    De Dumo is suspended from the practice of law for six months and the attorney’s fee is reduced to 15%
    of the total amount collected by him. He is also ordered to return the P 10, 200.00 net amount of the P
    12, 000.00 he collected and entitled of 15% attorney’s fee in case he made any other collection from
    Tanhueco’s debtors

    You might also like