Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Issue: WON Gonzalez committed the acts of misconduct alleged? PARTIAL Ruling: Suspended from the practice of law for 6 months
ONLY
RESEARCH & SERVICES REALTY vs. CA [1997]
Ratio:
• 3, Nov. 1969, Research and Services Realty Inc. entered into a joint unreasonable, and RTC and CA no jurisdiction because RTC had no final
venture agreement(JVA) with the Carreons to develop subdivide administer adjudication on MOA.
and promote the land of the latter. The proceeds would be paid to PNB ISSUE
against the mortgage of the land, and the net profits would be divided 50- WON the CA committed any error. YES WON fees should be granted. YES but
50. P600k is excessive.
• 4, April, 1983, the Carreons and Patricio Sarile went to court asking for a • CA was wrong to rely on the stipulation, since it said ON. But RTC was right
rescission on the JVA and prelim injunction and later a permanent one to rely on the quantum meruit. Research is also correct on the 2nd error
enjoining any sale of the lots. They also ask that the petitioner be made to relying on Fonacier’s admittance that he didn’t participate in the MOA,
pay 15% per annum of the outstanding obligation to PNB, including atty’s leading to the 3rd error logically that Fonacier didn’t do anything spectacular
fees, exemplary damages, litigation expenses, and costs. or out of the ordinary except to ask for the suspension of proceedings,
• Research’s answer was prepared and signed by Atty. Apolonio Reyes, making P600k unreasonable and excessive. 4th error, the trial court
seeking the denial and dismissal of the complaint and payment for its favor: intimated that the MOA would be dismissed and that no money adjudication
P10m actual damages, P5m return of the advance given to the Carreons to would be given to Research, therefore no atty’s lien would exist.
pay PNB to allow the work done, P100k exemplary damages, other • So Research is upheld but not necessarily on the strength of their
damages upto P4,638,420 under the Performance Bond in favor of the NHA arguments.
and P50k atty’s fees, plus costs. • Parties agree that their lawyer-client relationship was governed by the
• ON APRIL 9, 1985, Atty. Manuel S. FONACIER, Jr. only then was engaged retainer contract. Provisions for office, furnishings(phone, table, etc), legal
to appear. services referrals to corporation’s clients, minimal allowance and contingent
• Pending the case with the Carreons, July 24, 1992, Research went into a basis on collection cases aside from atty’s fees, costs of litigation outside
MOA with another developer(Filstream international inc.) unbeknownst to Manila like transpo and lodging.
Fonacier, which the latter found out LATER. The MOA included assignment • The contract was gen. Retainer type, and the fixed retainer fee of P800, is a
of rights and obligations under the JVA for P28m payable within 24 months. preliminary fee paid to secure the lawyer’s future services, to remunerate
• 31, March 1993, Research terminated the services of Fonacier, and the him from being deprives of rendering services to the other party. Absent of
former already received P7m from Filstream. agreement of the contrary, it is apart from what the client has agreed to pay
• Upon knowing of the MOA, Fonacier filed an Urgent Motion to Direct for the services which he has retained to perform. AND the contract they
Payment of Atty’s fees and/or Register Atty’s Charging Lien asking among executed did not envision that the retainer fee is the atty’s fees for the
other things, P700k as contingent fee in this case. services, that’s why there were provisions for the contingent fees.
• RTC granted P600k on the basis of quantum meruit. Fonacier was still • Even if the contract didn’t mention about the non-collection cases, absent
under contract when the deal was made, a lawyer-client relationship such stipulation doesn’t bar the atty from getting additional atty’s fees.
existed. The contract signed stipulated, 10% of the amount received, and it • 2 basis principles come into play: that the retainer fee is neither made nor
was Fonacier who paved the way for the relaxing of effects of injunction to received for services contemplated unless contrary is provided and that
allow the negotiation with Filstream. And before he was terminated P6m unless expressly stipulated, professional services of an atty is for a fee or
was already received. And a laywer of Research testified(Atty. Atienza) that compensation and is not gratuitous(facio ut des- I do you give). And §24
Fonacier did contribute so that the MOA can exist. RTC denied the MFR. rule 138,” an atty is entitled to recover reasonable compensation for his
• Petitioner appealed to the CA, saying that Fonacier didn’t even try to services”.
amicably settle and did nothing in the negotiations(direct) of the MOA, and • Accordingly as to non-collection cases, there was no supplemental
that P600k was unreasonable and fantastic. CA also decided for Fonacier agreement on this case that he will collect addt’l fees, but Fonacier is wrong
using the contingent basis stipulation in the retainer contract. The contract when he said that he gets 10%, the case is still unresolved. And the amount
said that minimal allowance of P800 per month plus contingent fees AND in the MOA couldn’t be made the basis, because of 3 reasons: his own
collection cases aside from atty’s fees. And that a previous P50k non- motion saying fees due and demandable only when petitioner can get a
collection case granted him P5k already. favorable decision in the MOA case, 2nd P28m is not a judgment or award, it
• Reserch again filed an MFR saying that what was stipulated was contingent was consideration of a transfer of rights and obli. 3rd Research was right
fees ON collection cases. that Fornacier was not party to the MOA.
• They assigned these errors: decision was against law and facts, GADALEJ • SO the fees that he is entitled is only through quantum meruit. As in §24,
in awarding the atty’s fees, GADALEJ that the fees were excessive and Rule 138, court said is based on ff. a. amount and character of service, b.
labor time and trouble, c. nature and importance of litigation, d.
responsibility involved, e. amount of money and value of prop affected by SC. SC: reversed lower court’s order of dismissal & remanded the case for
controversy, f. skill and experience called for, g. professional and character further proceedings.
standing of atty. H. if it is contingent then higher fees charged. Corpus wrote David enclosing a check amounting to P2k for legal services.
• Rule 20.1 Canon 20 also gives ff. guide to atty in determining fees. Time, He mentioned in the letter that he wanted to give him more and to offer
Novelty and difficulty, importance of subject, skill, probability of losing other some token of his appreciation for David’s participation in the legal fight. He
employment, customary charges of IBP chapter where he belongs, amount also mentioned that he looked forward to the continuation of the case in the
involved in case, contingency or certainty of compensation, occasional or lower court.
regular, professional standing. David returned the check, saying that his service was motivated by how
• Considering this, LOOKing at the decision, P600k was considered much he valued their intimate relationship in the past & not primarily for a
unreasonable. professional fee. He claimed that Corpus’ appreciation is enough
compensation but he’d be happy if Corpus would remember him when the
Petition granted, directed to pursue case on proper lien. case would finally be resolved in his favor.
This time, lower court decided in favor of Corpus. It ordered his
R. MARINO CORPUS, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS & JUAN T. reinstatement & payment of his back salaries & allowances. Affirmed by SC.
DAVID, respondents [1980] David’s law office made a demand upon Corpus for the collection of 50% of
Corpus, director of the Central Bank (CB) Export Dept, was charged amount recovered by latter. However, Corpus objected, claiming that he
administratively by several employees of said dept. He was represented by expected to net only P10k after reducing all expenses & taxes and that
Atty. Alvarez. Pending investigation, he was suspended. However, even there was really no formal agreement between them regarding the
after the investigating committee’s pronouncement that the charges were compensation/fees. David then wrote the CB Gov. requesting that the
w/o merit & that he should be reinstated, then CB Gov. Cuaderno still amount due Corpus be divided & issued in 2 checks (50-50), one in favor of
recommended that Corpus be considered resigned on ground of loss of Corpus & the other representing professional fees. However, David was not
confidence. The Monetary Board declared him resigned as of the date of able to obtain the desired relief thus, he filed this complaint against Corpus.
suspension. Lower court ordered Corpus to pay David P30k for professional fees. CA
Corpus filed a case against CB, Cuaderno & Marcos, the person who affirmed.
replaced him as director. He assailed Cuaderno’s decision. He was still While case was pending appeal w/the SC, David filed a petition to remand
represented by Atty. Alvarez. Dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative the case to the lower court for execution of the decision granting him P30k.
remedies available. He claims that the CA decision is deemed affirmed by the SC for latter’s
Atty. David claims that 6-7 days before the expiration of the period for failure to decide the case w/in 18 mos (Sec. 11.2, Art. X, 1973 Consti). He
appeal, he chanced upon Corpus’ dad in a café. David knew Corpus then filed a motion for the issuance of a writ of execution of the decision.
because they were close friends (on nickname-basis) and they were both Lower court then, through Judge Tecson, issued a writ of execution & a
members of the Civil Liberties Union (CLU). Corpus’ dad requested David notice of garnishment on Corpus’ bank deposits in the Commercial Bank &
to go over the case & find out what could be done about it. Corpus & David Trust Co. w/c prevented Corpus from making w/drawals from his bank
met & the former asked the latter to handle the case because Alvarez had account.
already been disenchanted & wanted to give up the case. David was initially David, Tecson & the bank were all asked to comment on Corpus’ letter
reluctant but he eventually agreed on the condition that he would asking the SC to inquire into the seeming irregularity in the issuance of the
collaborate w/Alvarez. notice of garnishment. The bank claims it was merely complying w/
Corpus’ side: He claims that even prior to the dismissal of the case, David Tecson’s order. Tecson likewise submitted his comment. David, on the other
was already interested in the case. Counsel was present during the hand, requested that he be excused from making a comment since Corpus’
hearings of the case. He even prepared a memorandum w/c he gave to letter was unverified.
Corpus when they met after the case was dismissed. According to David, SC: set aside Tecson’s orders along w/the writ of execution & notice of
the memorandum can secure the reversal of the order of dismissal. garnishment. Tecson & David were asked to show cause why they should
David filed a MFR of the dismissal order, argued said motion during the not be held in contempt for proceeding w/the case while such was pending
hearing; filed a Memorandum of Authorities. However, MFR was likewise appeal. David asked the SC en banc to resolve the merits of his compliance
denied. & he subsequently asked for the inhibition of the CJ & members of the 1st
Corpus, thru David, appealed w/the SC. He prepared a 232-page brief, division.
submitted such to the SC in Baguio, and orally argued the case before the
Issues & Ratio:
1. WON David is entitled to atty’s fees? – OF COURSE! Although Atty. Alvarez laid down the basic theory & foundation of the case,
Even if there is no formal contract expressing agreement between the 2 David also advanced legal propositions. He likewise came in it a crucial
parties, there is an implied agreement for the payment of the atty’s fees. stage in the case.
a. Corpus gave David P2k saying he wished to pay him more w/c Benefits secured for Corpus: reinstatement, recovery of back salaries &
constitutes a promise to pay more upon his reinstatement & payment of vindication of his honor & reputation.
back salaries.
b. David’s letter to Corpus saying the he (David) will be happy if Corpus 4. WON Atty. David should be held in contempt of court . – YES.
remembers him when he obtains a favorable decision. David continued He disrespected & disregarded the authority of the Court as the final arbiter
to be Corpus’ counsel. He even secured the a favorable decision for of all cases duly appealed to it. He violated Revised Rules of Court, Rule
Corpus. 138, Sec. 20b & Canons of Professional Ethics, Canon 1.
c. Corpus only assailed the decision ordering him to pay David the a. He filed a motion for the issuance of a writ of execution knowing fully
amount of P30k, but he did not deny latter’s rt to atty’s fees. He even well that the case was still pending appeal before the SC.
admitted that he was willing to compensate David but only to the extent b. He filed a motion w/o the necessary certification from the SC w/c will
of P10k. Proof enough that Corpus was aware of his responsibility to affirm CA’s decision pursuant to Sec. 11.2, Art. X, Consti.
pay David’s fees. Such belies his claim that David rendered his service In a previous case he handled, Atty. David requested for the issuance of
gratuitously. certification based on aforementioned Consti provision. The request was
d. Failure to reduce in writing the agreement for fees should not be taken not given consideration. Thus, he’s expected to be more prudent & cautious
against David who was acting based on the special relationship he had in filing w/the lower court any motion for execution.
w/Corpus & his father. Such relationship was based on mutual truth & There was a taint of arrogance & defiance on his part in not filing a
confidence. comment on Corpus’ letter, giving the lame excuse that it was not verified.
Payment of attorney’s fees is also justified by the innominate contract of David should have exercised nobility & exemplary forbearance knowing that
facio ut des (I do & you give) w/c is based on the principle that “no one other cases require immediate/preferential attention.
shall unjustly enrich himself at the expense of another.”
a. New CC Art. 1307: contracts regulated by the stipulation of the parties, 5. WON Judge Tecson should be held in contempt of court. – YES.
gen provisions/principles of obligations & contracts. His acts were presumptuous & precipitate in granting the motion for
b. Perez vs. Pomar: as long as services were accepted & made use of by execution.
one, it must be considered that there was a tacit & mutual consent to He disrespected & disregarded the authority of the SC because he knew
the rendition of the services w/c in turn gives rise to the obligation upon that case was still pending appeal. Court has yet to make a pronouncement
the person benefited by the services to make compensation therefor. on the Consti provision involved. Tecson cannot assume the SC’s role.
Their acts Invite a suspicion of connivance.
2. WON David was entitled to a contingent fee (that is, 50% of the
amount Corpus will get). – NO.
Contingent fees depend on an express contract. Since there is no written Holding:
contract regarding this matter between David & Corpus, former is not 1. Corpus directed top pay Atty. David P20k as atty’s fees.
entitled to a contingent fee. Nevertheless, he’s entitled to a reasonable 2. David & Tecson declared guilty of contempt and are hereby reprimanded w/
compensation under the innominate contract of facio ut des. a warning that repetition of the same/similar acts will be dealt w/more
severely.
3. What would be the reasonable fee for David based on the facts &
circumstances of the case? – P20,000.00 NARIDO vs. LINSANGAN [1974]
Reasonable – must be on a quantum meruit (what he deserves) basis. Administrative Cases in the SC
He handled the case for 4 yrs. Flora Narido, one of the adverse parties in a workmen’s compensation
case, warned the adverse counsel, Atty. Jaime S. Linsangan to withdraw
He appealed the first order of dismissal. Subsequently, he prepared
the affidavit of Milagros M. Vergel de Dios, w/c affidavit Narido claims to be
pleadings, made appearances during hearings, orally argued the case
perjured. But, Linsan Atty. Linsangan w/ disbarment should he insist in
before the SC. (see p. 442 for a complete list of his contributions)
offering gan refused
Mrs. Narido & Atty. Rufino Risma threatened the affidavit. Still, such affidavit
was filed (Facts taken from Sol. Gen’s investigation)
Thus, Mrs. Narido filed a complaint against Linsangan for allegedly violating
the attorney's oath by submitting a perjured statement
When required to answer, not only did he deny the complaint but also held
Atty. Risma accountable for having instigated his client (Narido) a false &
malicious complaint. The cases were referred to the Sol.Gen for
investigation, report and recommendation
WON Risma instigated his client to file a false and malicious complaint
NO. The report stated that Linsangan believed that Atty. Risma 'by virtue of
his financial interest in the Award,' instigated the filing of the admin case to
accomplish a short cut in winning a case.
Contrary to this belief, the Sol. Gen found it unkind to allude evil motive to
Atty. Risma, being more inclined to believe that Atty. Risma's missionary
zeal to fight for the rights of his clients triggered him into filing the admin
case. Narido was a destitute woman, and the Sol. Gen believed Atty. Risma
was only championing the cause of the poor.
There being no direct evidence to show the alleged bad faith of Atty. Risma
in advising his client to file the admin case against Atty. Linsangan, the
benefit of the doubt should be resolved in favor of Atty. Risma.
Consequently, the charge of instigating the filing of 'disbarment proceedings
against a brother attorney with improper motives and without just ground'
necessarily fails
These recommendations were also adopted by the SC
WON Atty. Risma should be penalized for seeking to more than the max
percentage of the recovery obtained by his client as provided in the
Workmen’s Compensation Act.
YES, however, he is only admonished.
Although it was not one of the charges in the counter-complaint filed against
Risma, the investigation also noted that Risma sought to collect 15% of the
recovery obtained by his client, contrary to the explicit provision in the
Workmen's Compensation Act allowing only a maximum of 10%. There was
also a recommendation for admonition or reprimand.
The Court held that the contract between Risma and Narido for entitling
Risma to 15% shall have no force and effect. But the penalty imposed shall
only be ADMONITION since Risma had made no effort to collect on the
same and had even advanced expenses for a poor client.
PEREZ vs. SCOTTISH UNION, ETC. [1946] because of the latter’s insistence, he would have gotten rid of said lawyer
Petitioner: Atty. Perez, previously counsel for Miguel Mitre in an arson case after losing faith in him
Respondents: Scottish Union, insurance Co. for Miguel Mitre Mitre does not appear to be so ignorant to blindly accept a lawyer he has no
Miguel Mitre faith in
Notice and copy of the CA’s decision were duly served to Unson’s recorded
address
OBANDO vs. FIGUERAS [2000] court, an attorney who has already been dismissed by the client is allowed
Facts: to intervene in a case in order to protect the client's rights
♦ 1964 – Alegria, Strebel Figueras, together with her stepsons, Eduardo and
Francisco, filed a Petition for settlement of the intestate estate of her
deceased husband Jose Figueras. Alegria died during the settlement of the
case. Hardly had the proceedings in both intestacies begun when Eduardo
was served a Petition for Probate of what purported to be Doña Alegria's
Last Will and Testament, filed by Felizardo S. Obando, a nephew of Doña
Alegria The alleged Will bequeathed to Petitioner Obando and several other
members of the Obando clan properties left by the Figueras couple,
including two parcels of land in Gilmore Avenue, New Manila, Quezon City.
♦ Eduardo insisted that the alleged Will was a forgery, the document was
submitted to the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) for examination and
comparison of Doña Alegria's alleged signature therein with samples which
both parties accepted as authentic.
♦ February 20, 1990 – the probate court denied Eduardo's Motion for
authority to sell the aforementioned two parcels of land in New Manila.
Despite the denial he sold the land in New Manila. New titles were issued
in favour of Amigo realty.
♦ June 4, 1992 – Obando filed a complaint against Eduardo and Amigo
Realty for the nullification of the sale. Subsequently Obando was removed
as co-administrator of the estate of the Figueras spouses. As such, a
motion to dismiss was filed and it was granted by the trial court.
♦ Court of Appeals dismissed the petition for certiorari.