Medina, Austin Viel L.

2015745031

Rosario Enriquez Vda. De Santiago vs. Atty. Jose A. Suing

G. R. No. 194814, October 21, 2015

Facts:

Respondent Atty. Suing, together with Atty. Reverente, served as counsel of Eduardo M.
Santiago, Petitioner Rosarios husband, on the civil case against Government Service Insurance System
(GSIS) for re-conveyance of 91 parcels of land. Six years during the pendency of the case, Eduardo died
and Rosario substituted her late husband on the said case. Two months later, Rosario entered into a
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Suing and the other counsels, stating that Suing and
Reverente shall receive 35% of the net proceeds of the case.

The Court ruled in favor of Rosario, re-conveying 78 of the 91 parcels of land. Suing filed on the
case in RTC a Notice of Attorneys Liens, invoking his entitlement of the 35% of the net proceeds by
reason of the MOU. Rosario opposed, claiming the lien is excessive and unjustified and demand that the
payment of Attorneys Liens shall be based on Quantum Meruit. Rosario filed a Notice of Discharge of
Counsel terminating the services of Suing and Reverente. Suing claimed that the said fee is neither
unconscionable nor unreasonable since they were the counsel of Rosario for ten years and they won the
said case.

RTC ruled in favor of Rosario declaring Suing entitled only of the 60% of the 10 % (6%) of the net
proceeds and the other counsels of the 40% (4%). CA affirmed the RTC decision, Suing raised the case in
SC. During the pendency of the case, GSIS claimed that they had an amicable settlement with Rosario
and the latter released them from any liability. With such, GSIS gave Suing the 6% on the net proceeds.

Issue:

Whether or not the entitlement of Attorneys Lien with 35% of the net proceeds as stipulated in
MOU is valid.

Ruling:

The Court declared the 35% of the net proceeds excessive as Attorneys Lien and such payment
shall be based on Quantum Meruit. Quantum Meruit is defined as a legal mechanism which prevents an
unscrupulous client from running away with the fruits of the legal services of a counsel without paying
therefor. Such basis is supported by the Rule 138 Sec. 24 of the Rules of Court and the provisions
imposed by the Canon 20 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
 The Court sought that the length of time claimed by respondent shall not be the sole
consideration for the payment, rather the character of service. The Court also found that Suing did
nothing extraordinary in handling Rosarios case. Since there was also admission of accidental
consolidation of the subject land, Suing did not require monumental effort to win the case. Moreover,
the two-month lapse of time form the death of Eduardo and the creation of MOU made the Court
conclude that Suing took advantage of the situation, wherein Rosario was recently widowed and
vulnerable and considering that there is no similar memorandum entered by Suing and Eduardo.

Therefore, the MOU is declared null and void and the 6% of the net proceeds given by the GSIS is
the valid Attorneys Lien for Suing.