Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila THIRD DIVISION G.R. No. 169079 February 12, 2007 FRANCISCO RAYOS, Petitioner, vs. ATTY. PONCIANO G. ERNAN!E", Respondent. D ! I S I O N CICO#NA"ARIO, J.: This is a Petition for Revie" # of the Resolution dated #$ March $%%& of the Inte'rated (ar of the Philippines )I(P*, dis+issin' petitioner rancisco Ra-oss co+plaint for disbar+ent a'ainst respondent /tt-. Po nciano Hernande 0. Respondent "as the counsel of petitioner in !ivil !ase No. SM12&# entitled, 3rancisco Ra-os v. N/PO!OR,3 filed before the Re'ional Trial !ourt )RT!*, Malolos, (ulacan. The co+plaint alle'ed, a+on' other thin's, that the National Po"er !orporation )N/PO!OR* r ec4lessl-, i+prudentl- and ne'li'entl- opened the three flood'ates of the spill"a- of /n'at Da+ at +idni'ht of $5 October #267 until the earl- +ornin' hours of $6 October #267, durin' the occurrence of t-phoon 38adin'3 causin' the release of a 'reat volu+e of stored "ater, the resultant s"ellin' and floodin' of /n'at River, and the conse9uent loss of lives of so+e of petitioners relatives and destruction of his fa+il-s properties, for "hich he sou'ht da+a'es. Of the #% +e+bers of petitioners fa+il- "ho perished, onl- four bodies "ere recovered and onl- petitioner and one of his sons, :er+an Ra-os, survived. On $# Dece+ber #262, the co+plaint "as dis+issed $ on the 'round that the State cannot be sued "ithout its consent as the operation and +ana'e+ent of /n'at Da+, Nor0a'ara-, "ere 'overn+ental functions. Said dis+issal "as 9uestioned directl- to this !ourt "hich set aside the RT! decision and ordered the reinstate+ent of the co+plaint. ; On ;% /pril #22%, ho"ever, the co+plaint "as dis+issed a'ain b- the RT! for lac4 of sufficient and credible evidence. < The case "as subse9uentl- appealed to the !ourt of /ppeals, "hich reversed the RT! decision and a"arded da+a'es in favor of petitioner, the dispositive portion of "hich reads= !ONORM/(>? TO THOR:OIN:, the @oint decision appealed fro+ is hereb- RVRSD and ST /SID, and a ne" one is hereb- rendered= A A A A
Respondent "as the counsel of petitioner in !ivil !ase No. SM12&# entitled, 3rancisco Ra-os v.N/PO!OR,3 filed before the Re'ional Trial !ourt )RT!*, Malolos, (ulacan. The co+plaint alle'ed,a+on' other thin's, that the National Po"er !orporation )N/PO!OR* rec4lessl-, i+prudentl- andne'li'entl- opened the three flood'ates of the spill"a- of /n'at Da+ at +idni'ht of $5 October #267until the earl- +ornin' hours of $6 October #267, durin' the occurrence of t-phoon 38adin'3 causin'the release of a 'reat volu+e of stored "ater, the resultant s"ellin' and floodin' of /n'at River, andthe conse9uent loss of lives of so+e of petitioners relatives and destruction of his fa+il-s properties,
for "hich he sou'ht da+a'es. Of the #% +e+bers of petitioners fa+il- "ho perished, onl- fourbodies "ere recovered and onl- petitioner and one of his sons, :er+an Ra-os, survived.
On $# Dece+ber #262, the co+plaint "as dis+issed $ on the 'round that the State cannot be sued"ithout its consent as the operation and +ana'e+ent of /n'at Da+, Nor0a'ara-, "ere 'overn+entalfunctions. Said dis+issal "as 9uestioned directl- to this !ourt "hich set aside the RT! decision andordered the reinstate+ent of the co+plaint. ;
On ;% /pril #22%, ho"ever, the co+plaint "as dis+issed a'ain b- the RT! for lac4 of sufficient andcredible evidence. <
The case "as subse9uentl- appealed to the !ourt of /ppeals, "hich reversed the RT! decision anda"arded da+a'es in favor of petitioner, the dispositive portion of "hich reads=
!ONORM/(>? TO TH OR:OIN:, the @oint decision appealed fro+ is hereb- RVRSD andST /SID, and a ne" one is hereb- rendered=
$. In !ivil !ase No. SM12&#, orderin' defendants1appellees to pa- @ointl- and severall-, plaintiff1appellant, "ith le'al interest fro+ the date "hen this decision shall have beco+e final and eAecutor-,the follo"in'=
/. /ctual da+a'es of ive Hundred T"ent- Thousand Pesos )P&$%,%%%.%%*B
(. Moral Da+a'es of ive Hundred Thousand Pesos )P&%%,%%%.%%*B and
!. >iti'ation Apenses of Ten Thousand Pesos )P#%,%%%.%%*.
A A A A
In addition, in all the four )<* instant cases, orderin' defendants1appellees to pa-, @ointl- and severall-plaintiffs1appellants, attorne-s fees in an a+ount e9uivalent to #&C of the total a+ount a"arded. &
The case "as appealed to this !ourt, "hich affir+ed the !ourt of /ppeals Decision. 5 The Decision ofthe Supre+e !ourt beca+e final and eAecutor- on < /u'ust #22;.
Thus, a rit of Aecution 6 "as issued b- the RT! on #% Dece+ber #22;, upon +otion filed b-respondent. /s a conse9uence, N/PO!OR issued !hec4 No. %#<6#% dated & Eanuar- #22<, in thea+ount of P#,%5%,7%%.%% pa-able to petitioner. Thereafter, the chec4 "as turned over to respondentas counsel of petitioner. Petitioner de+anded the turn over of the chec4 fro+ respondent, but thelatter refused.
On $< Eanuar- #22< , petitioner filed "ith the RT! a +otion 7 to direct respondent to deliver to hi+the chec4 issued b- N/PO!OR, correspondin' to the da+a'es a"arded b- the !ourt of /ppeals.Petitioner sou'ht to recover the chec4 in the a+ount of P#,%5%,7%%.%% fro+ respondent, clai+in' that
respondent had no authorit- to receive the sa+e as he "as alread- dis+issed b- petitioner as hiscounsel on $# Nove+ber #22;. 2 Respondent, on the other hand, @ustifies his retention as a +eans toensure pa-+ent of his attorne-s fees.
On 6 /pril #22<, the RT! issued an Order directin' respondent to deliver the chec4 to the Sheriff ofthe court "ho "ill subse9uentl- deliver it to petitioner. / rit of Aecution "as subse9uentl- issued.Despite the !ourt Order, respondent refused to surrender the chec4.
Ho"ever, on < Eul- #22<, respondent deposited the a+ount of P&%$,7;7.62 "ith ar+ers Savin'sand >oan (an4, Inc., Nor0a'ara-, (ulacan, in the na+e of petitioner "hich "as eventuall- received
b- the latter.
Thus, petitioner initiated this co+plaint for disbar+ent for the failure of respondent to return the rest ofthe a"ard in the a+ount of P&&6,25#.$#.
In his co++ent, #% respondent alle'ed that he handled petitioners case, in !ivil !ase No. SM12&#, for#& -ears, fro+ the trial court up to the Supre+e !ourt. On $# Nove+ber #22;, he received a letterfro+ petitioner dis+issin' hi+ as counsel. Si+ultaneous thereto, respondent received a letter dated#& Nove+ber #22; fro+ /tt-. Eose :. (runo as4in' hi+ to co++ent on the therein attached letter
dated #2 Nove+ber #22; of petitioner addressed to N/PO!OR, re9uestin' that the a"ard ofda+a'es 'ranted b- the !ourt of /ppeals and affir+ed b- the Supre+e !ourt be paid to hi+.
Respondent also averred that petitioner had a verbal contract for attorne-s fees on a contin'entbasis and that the said contract "as onl- reduced in "ritin' on 5 October #22#, dul- si'ned b- both ofthe+. (- virtue of the contract, petitioner and respondent supposedl- a'reed on a <%C15%C sharin',respectivel-, of the court a"ard. Respondent "as entitled to receive 5%C of the a"ard because
petitioner a'reed to pa- hi+ <%C of the a"ard as attorne-s fees and $%C of the a"ard as liti'ationeApenses.
Respondent further asseverated that because petitioner dis+issed the respondent and refused tosettle his obli'ation, he deposited the a+ount of P<$<,;$%.%% in a ban4 in petitioners na+e under
/ccount No. ;7# )representin' petitioners share of <%C of the total a"ard* on #% Ma- #22< ## B andthe a+ount of P5;,5<7.%% in petitioners na+e under /ccount No. ;72 )representin' petitionersshare of <%C of the P#&2,#$%.%% a"arded as attorne-s fees b- the !ourt of /ppeals* on #2 Ma-#22<. #$ Petitioner alread- received the a+ount ofP&%$,7;7.62 in accordance "ith the RT! Orderdated 6 /pril #22<.
Respondent contended that the petitioners co+plaint "as "ithout basis and "as +eant onl- toharass and put hi+ to sha+e before the residents of Nor0a'ara-, (ulacan.
In a Resolution dated 2 /u'ust #22&, #; the !ourt referred the case to the !o++ission on (arDiscipline of the I(P for investi'ation, report and reco++endation.
/ series of hearin's "ere conducted b- the !o++ission on (ar Discipline of the I(P at the I(P(uildin', Orti'as !enter, Pasi' !it-, fro+ March to Septe+ber $%%#.
On # ebruar- $%%&, Investi'atin' !o++issioner >-dia /. Navarro (. una sub+itted her Report andReco++endation, #< reco++endin' the dis+issal of the case.
Thereafter, the I(P issued its Resolution dated #$ March $%%&, approvin' and adoptin' thereco++endation of the Investi'atin' !o++issioner, thus=
RSO>VD to /DOPT and /PPROV, as it hereb- /DOPTD and /PPROVD, the Report andReco++endation of the Investi'atin' !o++issioner of the above1entitled case, herein +ade part ofthis Resolution as /nneA 3/3B and, findin' the reco++endation full- supported b- the evidence onrecord and the applicable la"s and rules, and considerin' that the case lac4s +erit, the sa+e is
hereb- DISMISSD. #&
e do not a'ree in the reco++endation of the I(P.
The threshold issue in this petition is= "hether respondent is @ustified in retainin' the a+ount a"ardedto petitioner in !ivil !ase No. SM12&# to assure pa-+ent of his attorne-s fees.
Mone-s collected b- an attorne- on a @ud'+ent rendered in favor of his client constitute trust fundsand +ust be i++ediatel- paid over to the client. #5 !anon #5 of the !ode of ProfessionalResponsibilit- provides as follo"s=
!/NON #5 1 / la"-er shall hold in trust all +one-s and properties of his client that +a- co+e into hispossession.
Rule #5.%# F / la"-er shall account for all +one- or propert- collected or received for or fro+ theclient.
In the case at bar, "hen respondent "ithheld and refused to deliver the N/PO!OR chec4representin' the a+ount a"arded b- the court in !ivil !ase No. SM12&#, "hich he received on behalf of his client )petitioner herein*, he breached the trust reposed on hi+. It is onl- after an Order "asissued b- the RT! orderin' the deliver- of the chec4 to petitioner that the respondent partiall-delivered the a+ount of P&%$,7;7.62 to the for+er, but still retainin' for hi+self the a+ountof P&&6,25#.$# as pa-+ent for his attorne-s fees. The clai+ of the respondent that petitioner failedto pa- his attorne-s fees is not an eAcuse for respondents failure to deliver the a+ount to the
petitioner. / la"-er is not entitled to unilaterall- appropriate his clients +one- for hi+self b- the +erefact alone that the client o"es hi+ attorne-s fees. #6 The failure of an attorne- to return the clients+one- upon de+and 'ives rise to the presu+ption that he has +isappropriated it for his o"n use tothe pre@udice and violation of the 'eneral +oralit-, as "ell as of professional ethicsB it also i+pairspublic confidence in the le'al profession and deserves punish+ent. In short, a la"-ers un@ustified"ithholdin' of +one- belon'in' to his client, as in this case, "arrants the i+position of disciplinar-action. #7
It is true that under !anon #5.%; of the !ode of Professional Responsibilit-, an attorne- has thefollo"in' ri'htsB
Rule #5.%;1 / la"-er shall deliver the funds and propert- of his client "hen due or upon de+and.Ho"ever, he shall have a lien over the funds and +a- appl- so +uch thereof as +a- be necessar- tosatisf- his la"ful fees and disburse+ents, 'ivin' notice pro+ptl- thereafter to his client. He shall alsohave a lien to the sa+e eAtent on all @ud'+ents and eAecutions he has secured for his client asprovided for in the Rules of !ourt. )+phases supplied.*
(ut the fact alone that a la"-er has a lien for fees on +one-s in his hands collected for his client, asabove1stated, does not relieve hi+ of his dut- to pro+ptl- account for the +one-s receivedB his failureto do so constitutes professional +isconduct. #2 Thus, "hat respondent should have properl- done inthe case at bar "as to provide the petitioner "ith an accountin' before deductin' his attorne-s feesand then to turn over the re+ainin' balance of the a"ard collected to petitioner. The !ourt notes thatrespondent represented petitioner fro+ the ti+e of filin' of the co+plaint in !ivil !ase No. SM12&#before "hat is no" the RT! and of the appeal of the sa+e case to the !ourt of /ppeals and Supre+e!ourt. (ut respondent "as not @ustified to hold on the entire a+ount of a"ard collected b- hi+ untilhis fees had been paid and received b- hi+.
The relationship of attorne- and client has al"a-s been ri'htl- re'arded as one of special trust andconfidence. /n attorne- +ust eAercise the ut+ost 'ood faith and fairness in all his relationship vis1G1
vis his client. Respondent fell far short of this standard "hen he failed to render an accountin' for thea+ount actuall- received b- hi+ on behalf of his client and "hen he refused to turn over an- portionof said a+ount to his client upon the preteAt that his attorne-s fees had not at all been paid.Respondent had, in fact, placed his private and personal interest above that of his client.
e have held that la"-erin' is not a +one-+a4in' venture and la"-ers are not +erchants. $% >a"advocac-, it has been stressed, is not capital that -ields profits. The returns it births are si+ple
re"ards for a @ob done or service rendered. It is a callin' that, unli4e +ercantile pursuits "hich en@o-a 'reater deal of freedo+ fro+ 'overn+ental interference, is i+pressed "ith a public interest, for"hich it is sub@ect to State re'ulation. $#
/ la"-er is not +erel- the defender of his clients cause and a trustee of his clients cause of actionand assetsB he is also, and first and fore+ost, an officer of the court and participates in thefunda+ental function of ad+inisterin' @ustice in societ-. $$ It follo"s that a la"-ers co+pensation forprofessional services rendered is sub@ect to the supervision of the court, not @ust to 'uarantee that thefees he char'es and receives re+ain reasonable and co++ensurate "ith the services rendered, butalso to +aintain the di'nit- and inte'rit- of the le'al profession to "hich he belon's. pon ta4in' his
attorne-s oath as an officer of the court, a la"-er sub+its hi+self to the authorit- of the courts tore'ulate his ri'ht to char'e professional fees. $;
There is another aspect to this case "hich the !ourt cannot @ust 'loss over. Respondent clai+ed thathe char'ed petitioner, his client, a contin'ent fee co+prisin' of fort- percent )<%C* as attorne-s feesand t"ent- percent )$%C* as liti'ation eApenses. The a'ree+ent provides=
N//IN N: >/H/T S/ P/M/M/:IT/N NITO=
/4o, si rancisco Ra-os, Sr., Pilipino, +a- sapat na 'ulan' at n'a-on a- naninirahan sa
Pina'barilan, (ali"a', (ulacan, sa pa+a+a'itan n' 4asulatan' ito, a- na'papatuna- sa +'asu+usunod=
Na, 4au'na- sa a4in' usapin laban sa NP! at (en@a+in !have0 )Ra-os vs. NP!, et al.* na n'a-ona- na4abinbin sa !ourt of /ppeals, a4o a- na4ipa'4asundo sa a4in' abo'ado, /tt-. Ponciano :.Hernande0, 'a-a n' su+usunod=
# Sa4alin' ipanalo an' a4in' usapin, an' ano +an' a4in' +a4u4uha a- hahatiin 'a-a n'su+usunod= <%C an' para sa a4inB <%C an' para 4a- /tt-. Ponciano :. Hernande0B $%C a- ilalabasbilan' 'astos sa 4aso.
$. 8un' +atalo a4o sa 4aso a- "ala a4on' sa'utin sa a4in' abo'ado.
Sa 4atuna-an n' lahat, a4o a- lu+a'da sa 4asunduan' ito dito sa Nor0a'ara-, (ulacan n'a-on' i4a15 n' O4tubre #22#.
/ contin'ent fee arran'e+ent is valid in this @urisdiction $& and is 'enerall- reco'ni0ed as valid andbindin' but +ust be laid do"n in an eApress contract. $5 The a+ount of contin'ent fee a'reed uponb- the parties is sub@ect to the stipulation that counsel "ill be paid for his le'al services onl- if the suitor liti'ation prospers. / +uch hi'her co+pensation is allo"ed as contin'ent fee in consideration ofthe ris4 that the la"-er +a- 'et nothin' if the suit fails. $6 !ontracts of this nature are per+ittedbecause the- redound to the benefit of the poor client and the la"-er 3especiall- in cases "here theclient has +eritorious cause of action, but no +eans "ith "hich to pa- for le'al services unless he
can, "ith the sanction of la", +a4e a contract for a contin'ent fee to be paid out of the proceeds ofthe liti'ation. Oftenti+es, the contin'ent fee arran'e+ent is the onl- +eans b- "hich the poor andhelpless can see4 redress for in@uries sustained and have their ri'hts vindicated.3 $7
!ontin'ent fee contracts are sub@ect to the supervision and close scrutin- of the court in order thatclients +a- be protected fro+ un@ust char'es. $2 Section #; of the !anons of Professional thicsstates that 3a contract for a contin'ent fee, "here sanctioned b- la", should be reasonable under allthe circu+stances of the case includin' the ris4 and uncertaint- of the co+pensation, but shouldal"a-s be sub@ect to the supervision of a court, as to its reasonableness.3 >i4e"ise, Rule #;7, Section$<, of the Rules of !ourt provides=
S!. $<. !o+pensation of attorne-sB a'ree+ent as to fees. 1 /n attorne- shall be entitled to haveand recover fro+ his client no +ore than a reasonable co+pensation for his services, "ith a vie" tothe i+portance of the sub@ect +atter of the controvers-, the eAtent of the services rendered, and theprofessional standin' of the attorne-. No court shall be bound b- the opinion of attorne-s as eApert"itnesses as to the proper co+pensation, but +a- disre'ard such testi+on- and base its conclusionon its o"n professional 4no"led'e. / "ritten contract for services shall control the a+ount to be paidtherefor unless found b- the court to be unconscionable or unreasonable. )nderscorin' supplied.*
The reduction of unreasonable attorne-s fees is "ithin the re'ulator- po"ers of the courts. ;% henthe courts find that the stipulated a+ount is eAcessive or the contract is unreasonable, or found tohave been +arred b- fraud, +ista4e, undue influence or suppression of facts on the part of theattorne-, public polic- de+ands that said contract be disre'arded to protect the client fro+unreasonable eAaction. ;#
There is, therefore, no" a corollar- issue of "hether the stipulated attorne-s fees are unreasonableand unconscionable under the circu+stances of the case as to "arrant a reduction thereof.
Stipulated attorne-s fees are unconscionable "henever the a+ount is b- far so disproportionateco+pared to the value of the services rendered as to a+ount to fraud perpetrated upon the client.This +eans to sa- that the a+ount of the fee contracted for, standin' alone and uneAplained "ouldbe sufficient to sho" that an unfair advanta'e had been ta4en of the client, or that a le'al fraud hadbeen perpetrated on hi+. ;$
The decree of unconscionabilit- or unreasonableness of a stipulated a+ount in a contin'ent feecontract, "ill not, ho"ever, preclude recover-. It +erel- @ustifies the fiAin' b- the court of a reasonableco+pensation for the la"-ers services.
:enerall-, the a+ount of attorne-s fees due is that stipulated in the retainer a'ree+ent "hich isconclusive as to the a+ount of the la"-ers co+pensation. / stipulation on a la"-ers co+pensationin a "ritten contract for professional services ordinaril- controls the a+ount of fees that thecontractin' la"-er +a- be allo"ed, unless the court finds such stipulated a+ount unreasonable orunconscionable. ;; In the absence thereof, the a+ount of attorne-s fees is fiAed on the basis of9uantu+ +eruit, i.e., the reasonable "orth of the attorne-s services. !ourts +a- ascertain also if theattorne-s fees are found to be eAcessive, "hat is reasonable under the circu+stances. ;< In no case,
ho"ever, +ust a la"-er be allo"ed to recover +ore than "hat is reasonable, pursuant to Section $<,Rule #;7 of the Rules of !ourt.
e have identified the circu+stances to be considered in deter+inin' the reasonableness of a clai+for attorne-s fees as follo"s= )#* the a+ount and character of the service renderedB )$* labor, ti+e,and trouble involvedB );* the nature and i+portance of the liti'ation or business in "hich the services"ere renderedB )<* the responsibilit- i+posedB )&* the a+ount of +one- or the value of the propert-affected b- the controvers- or involved in the e+plo-+entB )5* the s4ill and eAperience called for inthe perfor+ance of the servicesB )6* the professional character and social standin' of the attorne-B )7*the results securedB )2* "hether the fee is absolute or contin'ent, it bein' reco'ni0ed that an attorne-
+a- properl- char'e a +uch lar'er fee "hen it is contin'ent than "hen it is notB ;& and )#%* thefinancial capacit- and econo+ic status of the client have to be ta4en into account in fiAin' thereasonableness of the fee. ;5
Rule $%.#, !anon $% of the !ode of Professional Responsibilit- enu+erates the follo"in' factors"hich should 'uide a la"-er in deter+inin' his fees=
)a* The ti+e spent and the eAtent of the services rendered or re9uiredB
)b* The novelt- and difficult- of the 9uestions involvedB
)c* The i+portance of the sub@ect +atterB
)d* The s4ill de+andedB
)e* The probabilit- of losin' other e+plo-+ent as a result of acceptance of the proffered caseB
)f* The custo+ar- char'es for si+ilar services and the schedule of fees of the I(P !hapter to "hichhe belon'sB
)'* The a+ount involved in the controvers- and the benefits resultin' to the client fro+ the serviceB
)h* The contin'enc- or certaint- of co+pensationB
)i* The character of the e+plo-+ent, "hether occasional or establishedB and
)@* The professional standin' of the la"-er.
In the case at bar, respondent retained the a+ount of P&&6,25#.$# out of the P#,%5%,7%%.%% a"ardfor da+a'es paid b- N/PO!OR to petitioner. nder the said sche+e, respondent actuall- collected
fift-1three percent )&;C* or +ore than half of the total a+ount due the petitionerB indeed, heappropriated for hi+self +ore than the a+ount "hich he had alread- turned over to and actuall-received b- his client.
/s adverted to above, "e note that petitioner "as unschooled and frustrated and hopeless "ith thetra'ic loss of his loved ones caused b- the inundation of the to"n of Nor0a'ara-, (ulacan, on $51$6October #267 because of the ne'li'ent release b- N/PO!OR of the "ater throu'h the spill"a-s of
the /n'at Da+. Petitioner also had to face the loss and destruction of his fa+il-s properties. ndersuch circu+stances and 'iven his understandable desire to recover the da+a'es for the loss of hisloved ones and properties, petitioner "ould easil- succu+b and readil- a'ree to the de+ands ofrespondent la"-er re'ardin' his attorne-s fees.
e believe and so hold that the contin'ent fee here clai+ed "as, under the facts obtainin' in thiscase, 'rossl- eAcessive and unconscionable. Such a fee structure, "hen considered in con@unction"ith the circu+stances of this case, also sho"s that an unfair advanta'e "as ta4en of the client andle'al fraud and i+position perpetrated upon hi+. >a"-ers should not be per+itted to 'et a lionsshare of the benefits due the poor and the helpless. !ontracts for le'al services bet"een the helpless
and attorne- should be 0ealousl- scrutini0ed to the end that a fair share of the benefits be not deniedto the for+er. This !ourt has the po"er to 'uard a client, ;6 especiall- an a'ed and necessitousclient, ;7 a'ainst such a contract.
/ surve- of eAistin' @urisprudence re'ardin' attorne-s fees "ould reveal the follo"in'= in the case of /+al'a+ated >aborers /ssociation v. !ourt of Industrial Relations, ;2 the rate of attorne-s feesallo"ed "as $&CB in >a" ir+ of Ra-+undo /. /r+ovit v. !ourt of /ppeals, <% the rate allo"ed "as$%CB in Pol-trade !orporation v. (lanco, <# $&CB in Santia'o v. Di+a-u'a, <$ $%CB in !os+opolitanInsurance !o., Inc. v. Re-es,<; #&CB in Re-es v. !ourt of /ppeals, << #&CB and in Social Securit-!o++ission v. /l+eda, <& #&C.
In the present case, respondent /tt-. Hernande0, after all, succeeded in obtainin' a favorabledecision for his client, the petitioner. /t first, respondent failed to obtain a favorable @ud'+ent in theRT! as the case "as dis+issed. (ut on appeal to the !ourt of /ppeals, the RT! Decision "asreversed and petitioner "as a"arded the a+ount of P#,%5%,7%%.%% as da+a'es and P#&2,#$%.%% asattorne-s fees. Said a"ard "as sustained b- the Supre+e !ourt. e also ta4e note respondentsefforts in liti'atin' petitioners case for a lon' period of #& -ears. >astl-, the respondent too4 ris4 inrepresentin' petitioner on a contin'ent fee basis.
In consideration of the fore'oin', a fee of ;&C of the a+ount a"arded to petitioner "ould be a fairco+pensation for respondents le'al services.
The +isconduct of a la"-er, "hether in his professional or private capacit-, "hich sho"s hi+ to be"antin' in +oral character, honest-, probit- and 'ood de+eanor, renders hi+ un"orth- to theprivile'es "hich his license and the la" confer upon hi+, +a- be sanctioned "ith disbar+ent orsuspension. <5
The court should also eAercise a sound discretion in deter+inin' "hether a la"-er should bedisbarred or +erel- suspended. It should bear in +ind that ad+ission to the (ar is obtained onl- after
-ears of labor and stud- and the office ac9uired often beco+es the source of 'reat honor ande+olu+ent to its possessor. To +ost +e+bers of the le'al profession, it is a +eans of support forthe+selves and their fa+ilies. To deprive one of such an office is often to decree povert- to the la"-erand destitution to his fa+il-. <6 Disbar+ent, therefore, should never be decreed "here an- lesserpenalt-, such as te+porar- suspension, "ould acco+plish the end desired. <7
In the case of Schul0 v. /tt-. lores, <2 a la"-er "as suspended for siA +onths for not returnin' his
clients +one- despite de+ands, for un@ustifiabl- refusin' to return his clients papers, and forcollectin' eAcessive and unreasonable fees. /lso in the case of Tanhueco v. /tt-. De Du+o, &% ala"-er "as suspended for a period of siA +onths for failure to return the +one- received b- hi+ onbehalf of his client and for collectin' eAcessive and unconscionable fees.
:uided b- our rulin's in the abovestated cases, suspension of respondent for siA +onths is @ustifiedin the case at bar.1awphi1.net
HROR the !ourt Resolves that=
#. Respondent is 'uilt- of violation of the attorne-s oath and of serious professional +isconduct andshall be SSPNDD fro+ the practice of la" for siA )5* +onths and /RND that repetition of thesa+e or si+ilar offense "ill be dealt "ith +ore severel-B
$. Respondent is entitled to attorne-s fees in the a+ount e9uivalent to thirt-1five percent );&C* of thetotal a+ount a"arded &# to petitioner in !ivil !ase No. SM12&#B and
;. Respondent is to return the a+ount of T"o Hundred Ninet- Thousand One Hundred Nine Pesosand T"ent-1One !entavos )P$2%,#%2.$#*, &$ "hich he retained in eAcess of "hat "e herein declaredas fair and reasonable attorne-s fees, plus le'al interest fro+ date of finalit- of this @ud'+ent until full
pa-+ent thereof.
>et copies of this Decision be entered in the personal record of respondent as +e+ber of the (ar andfurnished the Office of the (ar !onfidant, the I(P, and the !ourt /d+inistrator for circulation to allcourts of the countr-.
I+ARIA TANUECO, co+plainant,vs.USTINIANO G. !E !UMO, respondent.
A.M. No. 16*% A&r'( 2), 19*9
I+ARIA TANUECO, co+plainant,vs.USTINIANO G. !E !UMO, respondent.
R S O > T I ON
PER CURIAM-
On $< ebruar- #26&, co+plainant Hilaria Tanhueco filed before the !ourt a Petition for Disbar+ent)doc4eted as /d+inistrative !ase No. #<;6* a'ainst respondent Eustiniano :. de Du+o for havin'violated the !anons of Professional thics b- his )a* refusal to re+it to her +one- collected b- hi+
fro+ debtors of the co+plainantB and )b* refusal to return docu+ents entrusted to hi+ as counsel ofco+plainant in certain collection cases.
In his /ns"er and !ounter1Petition 1 filed on ; /pril #26&, respondent denied the char'es.!o+plainant filed a Re@oinder Jshould be Repl-K to /ns"er "ith !ounter1Petition, on #7 /pril #26&. (-a Resolution 2 dated #5 Eune #26&, the !ourt referred this case to the Solicitor :eneral forinvesti'ation, report and reco++endation.
/ -ear later, on $& Eune #265, one Eose lorencio N. Tanhueco clai+in' to be the nephe" andrepresentative of the co+plainant, addressed a s"orn letter co+plaint to Mrs. I+elda R. Marcos
a'ainst the respondent for )a* refusal to re+it the +one- collected b- respondent fro+ debtors ofco+plainantLs aunt, Mrs. Hilaria Tanhueco Vda. de DavidB )b* refusal to return docu+ents entrusted tohi+ in his capacit- as counsel in certain casesB and )c* abandon+ent of cases in respect of "hich hisprofessional services had been en'a'ed. On $< /u'ust #265, the letter co+plaint "as for"arded b-the then Public Infor+ation /ssistance Staff, Depart+ent of Public Infor+ation, to this !ourt forappropriate action )and doc4eted as /d+inistrative !ase No. #57;*. /fter respondent had filed his
/ns"er, the !ourt, b- a Resolution % dated 2 Dece+ber #265, referred this case to then /ctin'Eudicial !onsultant Ricardo !. Puno for stud-, report and reco++endation.
Since /d+inistrative !ase No. #57; and /d+inistrative !ase No. #<;6 involved the sa+e parties andthe sa+e sub@ect +atter, Hon. Ricardo !. Puno referred the for+er case to the Office of the Solicitor:eneral for consolidation "ith the latter one.
The Office of the Solicitor :eneral held t"o )$* hearin's, one on ; Dece+ber #26& and another on #7 /pril #277. In the first hearin', respondent de Du+o "as absent althou'h he had been notifiedthereof. /t the end of the first hearin', continuation of the hearin' of the case "as set for #< Eanuar-
#265. The records sho" that the second hearin' too4 place on #7 /pril #277 but do not indicate thereason for the #$1-ear interre'nu+. (- then, co+plainant Tanhueco had died. There "as noappearance at the second hearin' b- co+plainant Eose lorencio Tanhueco but respondent de Du+o"as then present.
The report of the Solicitor :eneral, dated Eune #&, #277 in /d+inistrative !ase No. #<;6 su++ari0edthe evidence for the co+plainant in the follo"in' +anner=
EVIDENCE FOR COMPLAINANT
!o+plainant Hilaria Tanhueco testified that she secured the le'al services ofrespondent to collect indebtedness fro+ her different debtors. /lthou'h she offered toeAecute a docu+ent evidencin' their la"-er1client relationship, respondent told her thatit "as not necessar-. She nonetheless offered to 'ive hi+ #&C of "hat he +a- be ableto collect fro+ the debtors )pp. <16. tsn, Dec. ;, #26&*.
!o+plainant also declared that respondent borro"ed fro+ her P$,%%%.%%, Pl,;%%.%%,and P;,%%%.%% on three separate occasions, but she could not re+e+ber "hen she'ave those a+ounts. Respondent did not pa- those loans )pp. 712, tsn, I .*.
She confir+ed that respondent filed cases a'ainst her debtors and that one of the+,!onstancia Maosca paid P#$,&%%.%% to respondent. Infor+ed of such pa-+ent b-Maosca herself, co+plainant confronted respondent but the latter denied havin'received pa-+ent fro+ an- of her debtors. !o+plainant then brou'ht the +atter to theattention of Malacaan' "hich referred her to !a+p !ra+e. Not"ithstandin'subse9uent de+ands of co+plainant for the +one-, respondent had refused to 'ive her the a+ount )pp. ## 1#&, tsn, I .*.
The Solicitor :eneral then su++ed up the evidence for the respondent in the follo"in' ter+s=
EVIDENCE FOR RE!PONDENT
Re"ponent Att#. $u"tiniano %. e Du&o testified that co+plainant indeed secured hisle'al services to collect fro+ her debtors, "ith the a'ree+ent that he 'ets &%C of "hathe +a- be able to collect. He thus filed collection cases a'ainst Tipace MaoscaMorena, Er., and others, and "as able to obtain favorable @ud'+ent in the cases a'ainstMaosca, Tipace, and >eonila Mendo0a. The initial pa-+ents +ade b- these @ud'+ent1debtors "ere all 'iven to co+plainant. ith respect to Maosca respondent obtained a
@ud'+ent for P#2,%%%.%% althou'h the debt "as onl- P#$,%%%.%% )pp. ;12, tsn, /pril #7,#277*.
Respondent also declared that co+plainant, "ho "as then alread- old and sic4l-, "asinfluenced b- her debtors, "ho "ere also her friends into distrustin' hi+. lti+atel-,because co+plainant filed a co+plaint a'ainst hi+ "ith Malacaan' "hich referred the+atter to !a+p !ra+e, he ter+inated his relationship "ith co+plainant and de+anded
his attorne-Ls fees e9uivalent to &%C of "hat he had collected. !o+plainant refused topa- hi+, hence, he did not also turn over to her the P#$,%%%.%% initial pa-+ent ofMaosca "hich he considered, or applied, as part pa-+ent of his attorne-Ls fee )pp. 21#2, tsn., I .*. Respondent esti+ated his attorne-Ls fee due fro+ co+plainant in thea+ount of P#6,%%%.%% )p. $%, tsn' I .*
Respondent denied havin' borro"ed the a+ounts of P$,%%%.%%, P#,;%%.%%, P;,%%%.%%and P#,%%%.%%, pointin' out that co+plainant did not even have +one- to pa- hi+ sothat he handled the cases for her on contin'ent basis )p. #6, tsn, Id.* He also deniedhavin' received docu+entar- evidence fro+ co+plainant. hat evidence he had "ere
all 'athered b- hi+ on his initiative )pp. <16, tsn, I .*.
The Solicitor :eneral then set out the follo"in'=
FINDIN%!
There is in the case at bar clear a&i""ion" (# (oth co&plainant an re"ponent o) an
attorne#*client relation"hip (etween the&, specificall- in the collection of debts o"in'co+plainant. Re"ponent al"o a&itte' in hi" an"wer to the co&plaint an in hi"
te"ti&on#' ha+in, recei+e P1-'. )ro& ine(tor Con"tancia Mano"ca without
turnin, o+er the a&ount to hi" client' co&plainant herein' an appl#in, it in"tea a" part
o) hi" attorne#/" )ee". It has been held that the +one- collected b- a la"-er inpursuance of a @ud'e+ent in favor of his client held in trust )/-a v. (i'onia,&6Phil.7BDaro- v..>e'aspi 5& S!R/ ;%<*, and that the attorne- should pro+ptl- accountfor all funds and propert- received or held b- hi+ for the clientLs benefit )Daro- v.>e'aspi, "upraB In re (a+ber'er, <2 Phil. 25$*. The circu+stance that an attorne- has alien for his attorne-Ls fees on the +one- in his hands collected for his client does notrelieve hi+ fro+ the obli'ation to +a4e a pro+pt accountin' )Do+in'o l v. Do+in'JoK:.R. No. ;%&6;, Oct. $2, #26#B Daro- v. >e'aspi, "upra*. 0nou(tel#' re"ponent/"
)ailure to account )or the P1-'.' repre"entin, pa#&ent o) the u,e&ent e(t o)
Ma2o"ca con"titute" unpro)e""ional conuct and sub@ects hi+ to disciplinar- action.Nonetheless, it has li4e"ise been reco'ni0ed that a la"-er is as +uch entitled to @udicialprotection a'ainst in@ustice, i+position or fraud on the part of his clientB and that theattorne- is entitled to be paid his @ust fees. The attorne- should be protected a'ainst an-atte+pt on the part of his client to escape pa-+ent of his @ust co+pensation )ernande0v. (ello, #%6 Phil. ##<%B /lbano v. !olo+a, :.R. /d+. !ase No. &$7, Oct. ##, #256*.This countervailin' rule +iti'ates the actions of respondent.
/s re'ards the char'es that respondent received docu+ents evidencin' the debts toco+plainant and had refused to return the+ to the latter, and that respondent alsoborro"ed so+e a+ounts fro+ her, there JisK no co+petent, conclusive evidence tosupport the+. Perforce, such alle'ations have no factual basis. )+phasis supplied*
The Solicitor :eneral then reco++ended that=
or failure to turn over the a+ount of P#$,%%%.%% to the co+plainant, and appl-in' it ashis attorne-Ls fees, respondent /tt-. Eustiniano :. de Du+o be severel- repri+andedand ad+onished that repetition of the sa+e or si+ilar offense "ill be dealt "ith +oreseverel-.
e find the findin's of fact of the Solicitor :eneral supported b- the evidence of record. e are,ho"ever, unable to accept his reco++endation.
Mone-s collected b- an attorne- on a @ud'+ent rendered in favor of his client, constitute trust fundsand +ust, be i++ediatel- paid over to the client. $ !anon ## of the !anons of Professional
thics ) then in force, provides as follo"s=
##. Dealin, with tru"t propert# .
The la"-er should refrain fro+ an- action "hereb- for his personal benefit or 'ain heabuses or ta4es advanta'e of the confidence reposed in hi+ b- his client.
Mone# o) the client or collecte )or the client or other trust propert- co+in' into thepossession of the la"-er should be reported and accounte )or pro&ptl# and "houl not
uner an# circu&"tance (e co&in,le "ith his o"n or (e u"e (# hi&. )+phasis
supplied*
hen respondent "ithheld and refused to deliver the +one- received b- hi+ for his client, thedeceased co+plainant Hilaria Tanhueco, he breached the trust reposed upon hi+.The clai+ of therespondent that co+plainant had failed to pa- his attorne-Ls fees, is not an eAcuse for respondentLsfailure to deliver an- a+ount to the co+plainants. 6 It is of course true that under Section ;6 of Rule#;7 of the Revised Rules of !ourt, an attorne- has1
a lien upon the funds, docu+ents and papers of his client "hich have la"full- co+e intohis possession and +a- retain the sa+e until his la"ful fees and disburse+ents have
been paid, and +a- appl- such funds to the satisfaction thereof. He shall also have alien to the sa+e eAtent upon all @ud'+ents for the pa-+ent of +one- and eAecutionsissued in pursuance of such @ud'+ents, "hich he has secured in a liti'ation of his client,fro+ and after the ti+e "hen he shall have caused a state+ent of his clai+ of such liento be entered upon the records of the court renderin' such @ud'+ent, or issuin' sucheAecution, and shall have caused "ritten notice thereof to be delivered to his client andto the adverse part-B and he shall have the sa+e ri'ht and po"er over such @ud'+entsand eAecutions as his client "ould have to enforce his lien and secure the pa-+ent ofhis @ust fees and disburse+ents.
The fact that a la"-er has a lien for fees on +one-s in his hands collected for his client, does notrelieve hi+ fro+ his dut- pro+ptl- to account for the +one-s receivedB his failure to do so constitutesprofessional +isconduct. 7
In the present case, "hat respondent could have properl- done "as to +a4e an account "ith hisclient, the co+plainant, euct hi" attorne#/" )ee" ue in re"pect o) the a&ount actuall# collecte (#
hi&, and turn over the re+ainin' balance to the co+plainant. The !ourt notes that the services of
respondent de Du+o "ere en'a'ed b- the co+plainant on a nu+ber of cases and that these "ere ondifferin' sta'es of co+pletion. Respondent "as not entitled to hold on to the entire a+ount ofP#$,%%%.%% collected b- hi+ until all his fees for the other cases had also been paid and received b-hi+. There "as not enou'h evidence in the record to sho" ho" +uch +one-, i) an# , respondent hadin fact previousl- )i.e., other than the P#$,%%%.%% fro+ Maosca* collected for and turned over toco+plainant )thereb- "aivin' his lien thereon* without deductin' therefro+ his clai+ed contin'entfees in respect of such collections.
The relationship of attorne- and client has al"a-s been ri'htl- re'arded as one of special trust andconfidence. /n attorne- +ust eAercise the ut+ost 'ood faith and fairness in all his relationships +i"*a*
+i" his client. Respondent fell far short of this standard "hen he failed to render an accountin' for thea+ount actuall- received b- hi+ and "hen he refused to turn over an- portion of such a+ountreceived b- hi+ on behalf of his client upon the preteAt that his attorne-Ls fees had not all been paid.Respondent had in fact placed his private and personal interest above that of his client. RespondentLsact constitutes a breach of his la"-erLs oath and a +ere repri+and is not an ade9uate sanction.
There is another aspect to this case "hich the !ourt cannot 'loss over. Respondent clai+ed that hechar'ed co+plainant, his client, a contin'ent fee of fift- percent )&%C* of the a+ount collected b-hi+, plus interest and "hatever attorne-Ls fees +a- be a"arded b- the trial court char'eable to theother part-. In this @urisdiction, contin'ent fees are not per "e prohibited b- la". 7 (ut "hen it is sho"nthat a contract for a contin'ent fee are obtained b- undue influence eAercised b- the attorne- uponhis client or b- an- fraud or i+position, or that the co+pensation is clearl- eAcessive, the !ourt +ustand "ill protect the a''rieved part-. 9
ro+ the /ns"er of respondent de Du+o it appears that in three );* collection cases filed b- hi+ forthe co+plainant and "hich "ere decided in favor of the co+plainant, the a"ards totalled P;#,;2%.%%.Respondent asserted that he "as entitled to attorne-Ls fees a+ountin' to Pl7,7<%. %% out of thea''re'ate total of P;#,;2%.%%=
6. That the understandin' bet"een Hilaria Tanhueco and +e "as a )i)t#* )i)t# on
collecte principal an intere"t". The law#er ha" the ri,ht to char,e attorne#/" )ee" to
the other part#*e)enant an that Hilaria Tanhueco "hall not inter)ere nor (e inclue
in the co&putation.
That of the cases filed, the follo"in' +ade pa-+ents=
/ttorne-Ls fees to be paid b- Tipace and not to be included inthe co+putation............................. Pl,<&%.%%
ift- per cent on the principal a+ount collectible fro+ Tipaceplus interests.................................. <,26%.%%
TOT/> /MONT
R!IV/(>............. P5,<$%.%%
7. The total a+ount "hich I ou'ht to receive as attorne-Lsfees under para'raph seven, sub1para'raph a, b and c is=
Pll,2$%. %%
P5,<$%.%%
P&%%. %%
P#7,7<%. %% TOT/> 10
e note that respondent attorne- clai+ed as his contin'entfee the follo"in'=
#* fift- percent )&%C* of the su+ of principaland interest collectible fro+ different debtorsBand
$* attorne-Ls fees char'ed to the defendant)presu+abl- under pro+issor- notes or "rittena'ree+ents* and 3not to be included in theco+putation.3
nder this sche+e, respondent "as actuall- collectin' asattorne-Ls fees siAt- percent )5%C* or +ore than half of thetotal a+ount due fro+ defendant debtorsB indeed, he "asappropriatin' for hi+self +ore than "hat he "as, accordin'
to hi+, to turn over to his client.
e believe and so hold that the contin'ent fee here clai+ed"as, under the facts obtainin' in this case, 'rossl- eAcessiveand unconscionable. 11 Such a fee structure, "henconsidered in con@unction "ith the circu+stances of thiscase, also sho"s that an unfair advanta'e "as ta4en of theclient and le'al fraud and i+position perpetrated upon her.
The co+plainant "as an old and sic4l- "o+an and, inrespondentLs o"n "ords, 3penniless.3 She "as at the ti+eshe filed her co+plaint in #265, alread- sevent-1siA )65*-ears old. In her circu+stances, and 'iven herunderstandable desire to reali0e upon debts o"ed to herbefore death overtoo4 her, she "ould easil- succu+b to thede+ands of respondent attorne- re'ardin' his attorne-Ls
fees. It +ust be stressed that the +ere fact that ana'ree+ent had been reached bet"een attorne- and clientfiAin' the a+ount of the attorne-Ls fees, does not insulatesuch a'ree+ent fro+ revie" and +odification b- the !ourt"here the fees clearl- appear to be eAcessive orunreasonable. In Ma&(ulao Lu&(er Co&pan# +. Philippine
National 3an4' et al ., 12 this !ourt stressed=
The principle that court" "houl reuce
"tipulate attorne#/" )ee" whene+er it i" )oun
uner the circu&"tance" o) the ca"e that the
"a&e i" unrea"ona(le' i" now eepl# roote in
thi" uri"iction to entertain an# "eriou"
o(ection to it . Thus, this !ourt has eAplained=
(ut the principle that it +a- be la"full-stipulated that the le'al eApenses involved inthe collection of a debt shall be defra-ed b- thedebtor does not i+pl- that such stipulations+ust be enforced in accordance "ith theter+s, no +atter ho" in@urious or oppressivethe- +a- be. The la"ful purpose to beacco+plished b- such a stipulation is to per+itthe creditor to receive the a+ount due hi+under his contract "ithout a deduction of theeApenses caused b- the delin9uenc- of thedebtor. It should not be per+itted for hi+ toconvert such a stipulation into a source ofspeculative profit at the eApense of the debtor.
AAA AAA AAA
Since then thi" Court ha" in+aria(l# )i5e
coun"el )ee" on a 6uantu& &eruit (a"i"
whene+er the )ee" "tipulate appear
e5ce""i+e' uncon"ciona(le' or unrea"ona(le,because a la"-er is pri+aril- a court officerchar'ed "ith the dut- of assistin' the court inad+inisterin' i+partial @ustice bet"een the
fifteen percent )#&C* of the total a+ountcollected b- respondent fro+ the debtors inthose casesB
;. respondent shall return forth"ith to theestate of co+plainant Hilaria Tanhueco theP#$,%%%.%% respondent received on behalf of
his client less attorne-Ls fees due to hi+ inrespect of that a+ount )P l$,%%%.%% less fifteenpercent J#&CK thereof* or a net a+ount ofP#%,$%%.%%B and
<. respondent shall return to the estate ofco+plainant Hilaria Tanhueco an- docu+entsand papers received b- hi+ fro+ the deceasedco+plainant in connection "ith the collectioncases for "hich he "as retained. If he has in
fact +ade an- other collections fro+ deceasedco+plainantLs debtors, he shall pro+ptl-account therefor to co+plainantLs estate andshall be entitled to receive in respect thereofthe fifteen percent )#&C* attorne-Ls feesprovided for herein.
>et a cop- of this Resolution be furnished each to the (ar!onfidant and spread on the personal record of respondentattorne-, and to the Inte'rated (ar of the Philippines.
A+E . CUETO, complainant , vs. ATTY. OSE . IMENE", R., respondent .
R E S O + U T I O N
CORONA, J .-
(efore us is a co+plaintJ#K for disciplinar- action a'ainst /tt-. Eose Ei+ene0, Er. filed b-n'r. /leA (. !ueto "ith the Inte'rated (ar of the Philippines )I(P*, !o++ission on (arDiscipline.
n'r. /leA !ueto alle'ed that so+eti+e in October #222 he en'a'ed the services ofrespondent as notar- public, the latter bein' the father of the o"ner of the buildin' sub@ectof the !onstruction /'ree+entJ$K to be notari0ed. He "as then acco+panied b- a certainVal Rivera, the buildin' ad+inistrator of respondents son Eose Ei+ene0 III.
/fter notari0in' the a'ree+ent, respondent de+anded P&%,%%% as notarial feeDespite his surprise as to the cost of the notarial service, co+plainant infor+edrespondent that he onl- had P;%,%%% in cash. Respondent persuaded co+plainant to pa-the P;%,%%% and to issue a chec4 for the re+ainin' P$%,%%%. (ein' unfa+iliar "ith thecost of notarial services, co+plainant paid all his cash J;K and issued a ar ast (an4 chec4dated Dece+ber $7, #222 for the balance.
(efore the +aturit- date of the chec4, co+plainant re9uested respondent not to
deposit the sa+e for lac4 of sufficient funds. He also infor+ed respondent that the lattersson Eose Ei+ene0 III had not -et paid his services as 'eneral contractor. Still, respondentdeposited the chec4 "hich "as conse9uentl- dishonored for insufficient funds. Mean"hile,the P$,&%%,%%% chec4 issued b- respondents son to co+plainant as initial pa-+entpursuant to the !onstruction /'ree+ent "as itself dishonored for havin' been dra"na'ainst a closed account.
Subse9uentl-, /tt-. Ei+ene0 lod'ed a co+plaint for violation of (P $$ a'ainst !uetobefore the !it- Prosecutors Office in /n'eles !it-. The cri+inal case "as tried in the
Metropolitan Trial !ourt of /n'eles !it-, (ranch I.
In the +eanti+e, !ueto filed his o"n ad+inistrative co+plaint a'ainst Ei+ene0 onNove+ber #5, $%%#. He alle'ed that Ei+ene0 violated the !ode of ProfessionaResponsibilit- and !anons of Professional thics "hen he filed the cri+inal case a'ainst!ueto so he could collect the balance of his notarial fee.
Pursuant to Rule #;21(, Section 5 of the Rules of !ourt, respondent Ei+ene0 "asre9uired to ans"er the co+plaint filed a'ainst hi+. J<K Despite notice, ho"ever, respondentfailed to file his ans"er and to appear before the I(P !o++ission on (ar Discipline. /fterhearin' the case eA1parte, the case "as dee+ed sub+itted for resolution. J&K
In its reportJ5K dated /pril $#, $%%$, the I(P !o++ission on (ar Discipline found
respondent 'uilt- of violatin' !anon $%, Rule $%.< of the !ode of ProfessionaResponsibilit- and reco++ended that /tt-. Eose (. Ei+ene0, Er. be repri+anded.
On Eune $2, $%%$, the (oard of :overnors passed a resolutionJ6K adoptin' andapprovin' the report and reco++endation of the Investi'atin' !o++issioner= J7K
RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED, the Report
and Recommendation of the Investigating ommissioner of the above!entit"ed case, herein made
part of this Reso"#tion$Decision as Anne% &A'( and, finding the recommendation f#""y s#pported by
the evidence on record and the app"icab"e "a)s and r#"es, and in vie) of respondent*s vio"ation ofanon +, R#"e +-. of the ode of Professiona" Responsibi"ity, respondent is hereby reprimanded-
!o+plainants clai+ that respondents P&%,%%% notarial fee "as eAorbitant isdebatable. /s confir+ed b- the I(P, it is a reco'ni0ed le'al practice in real estatetransactions and construction pro@ects to base the a+ount of notarial fees on the contractprice. (ased on the a+ount de+anded b- respondent, the fee represented onl- #C of thecontract price ofP&,%%%,%%%. It cannot be said therefore that respondent notar- de+anded+ore than a reasonable reco+pense for his service.
e are also convinced that the t"o contractin' parties i+plicitl- a'reed on the cost ofEi+ene0s notarial service. It "as !uetos responsibilit- to first in9uire ho" +uch he "as'oin' to be char'ed for notari0ation. /nd once infor+ed, he "as free to accept or re@ect it,or ne'otiate for a lo"er a+ount. In this case, co+plainants concern that the other part- tothe construction a'ree+ent "as the son of respondent notar- and that his non1avail+entof respondents service +i'ht @eopardi0e the a'ree+ent, "as purel- speculative. There"as no co+pulsion to avail of respondents service. Moreover, his failure to ne'otiate thea+ount of the fee "as an i+plicit ac9uiescence to the ter+s of the notarial service. His
subse9uent act of pa-in' in cash and in chec4 all the +ore proved it.
Ho"ever, "e a'ree "ith the I(P that respondents conduct in filin' a cri+inal case forviolation of (P $$ a'ainst co+plainant )"hen the chec4 representin' the P$%,%%% balance"as dishonored for insufficient funds* "as hi'hl- i+proper.
!anon $%, Rule $%.< of the !ode of Professional Responsibilit- +andates that QJaKla"-er shall avoid controversies "ith clients concernin' his co+pensation and shall resort
to @udicial action onl- to prevent i+position, in@ustice or fraud. >i4e"ise, in !anon #< ofthe !anons of Professional thics it states that, QJcKontroversies "ith clients concernin'co+pensation are to be avoided b- the la"-er so far as shall be co+patible "ith his self1respect and "ith his ri'ht to receive reasonable reco+pense for his serviceB and la"suits"ith the clients should be resorted to onl- to prevent in@ustice, i+position or fraud.
There "as clearl- no i+position, in@ustice or fraud obtainin' in this case to @ustif- thele'al action ta4en b- respondent. /s borne out b- the records, co+plainant !ueto hadalread- paid +ore than half of respondents fee. To resort to a suit to recover the balancereveals a certain 4ind of sha+eful conduct and inconsiderate behavior that clearl-under+ines the tenet e+bodied in !anon #& that QJ/K la"-er should observe candor,fairness and lo-alt- in all his dealin's and transactions "ith his client. /nd "hat can "esa- about the failure of respondents son Eose III to pa- his o"n obli'ation to co+plainant!ueto It in all probabilit- eAplains "h- !ueto ran short of funds. Respondent thereforeshould have been +ore tolerant of the dela- incurred b- co+plainant !ueto.
e cannot overstress the dut- of a la"-er to uphold the inte'rit- and di'nit- of thele'al profession.J2K He can do this b- faithfull- perfor+in' his duties to societ-, to the bar, tothe courts and to his clients. He should al"a-s re+ind hi+self that the le'al profession isi+bued "ith public service. Re+uneration is a +ere incident.
/lthou'h "e ac4no"led'e that ever- la"-er +ust be paid "hat is due to hi+, he +ustnever resort to @udicial action to recover his fees, in a +anner that detracts fro+ the di'nit-of the profession.
3EREFORE, /tt-. Eose Ei+ene0, Er. is hereb- SVR>? RPRIM/NDD forviolatin' !anon $%, Rule $%.< of the !ode of Professional Responsibilit-.
SO OR!ERE!.
Pan,ani(an' 9Chair&an7' !ano+al*%utierre8' Carpio*Morale"' and %arcia'
Teooro O. Do&alanta )or an on hi" (ehal) a" pri+ate
re"ponent.
GUTIERRE", R., J.: p
The practice of la" is a profession rather than trade.!ourts +ust 'uard a'ainst the char'in' ofunconscionable and eAcessive fees b- la"-ers for theirservices "hen en'a'ed as counsel. hether or not thea"ard of attorne-Ls fees in this case is reasonable, bein'in the nature of contin'ent fees, is the principal issue.
This petition for revie" on certiorari assails=
#* The Decision of the public respondent dated
Septe+ber #$, #272 "hich dis+issed the petitionersLappeal thereb- upholdin' the reasonableness of therespondent la"-erLs lien as attorne-Ls fees over theproperties of his clientsB and
$* The Resolution of the public respondent dated
Eanuar- ;%, #22% "hich denied the petitionersL +otionfor reconsideration.
The 'rounds relied upon b- the petitioners are asfollo"s=
The respondent !ourt, in upholdin' theentitle+ent of private respondent1attorne- on theattorne-Ls fees he clai+ed, decided the 9uestionin a +anner not in accord "ith la" or "ith the
applicable decisions of this Honorable Tribunal.
The respondent !ourt, in refusin' to revie" anddeter+ine the propriet-, reasonableness andvalidit- of the attorne-Ls fees clai+ed b- theprivate respondent1attorne-, departed fro+ theusual course of @udicial proceedin's.
The respondent !ourt, in failin' to declare theattorne-Ls fees clai+ed b- the privaterespondent1attorne- as unconscionable,
eAcessive, unreasonable, i++oral and unethical,decided the 9uestion in a "a- not in accord "ithla" and "ith applicable decisions of thisHonorable Tribunal. )Petition, pp. #$1#;B Rollo,pp. #51#6*
The follo"in' are the antecedent facts pertinent to thecase at bar=
The respondent la"-er "as retained as counsel b- hisbrother1in1la" and sister, the no" deceased petitionersLparents, spouses /urelio and elicidad >icudan. His
services as counsel pertained to t"o related civil casesdoc4eted as !ivil !ase No. 1#$$&< for partition and!ivil !ase No. 1$75&& for a su+ of +one- inconnection "ith the rede+ption of the propert- sub@ect
+atter of the t"o cases covered b- Transfer !ertificateof Title No. 7#7 of the Re'ister of Deeds of ue0on !it-.In both cases, the respondent la"-er obtained a @ud'+ent in favor of his clients.
On /u'ust #;,#262, the respondent la"-er filed aPetition for /ttorne-Ls >ien "ith Notification to his !lients"hich substantiall- alle'ed that his clients eAecuted t"o"ritten contracts for professional services in his favor"hich provided that=
a* The undersi'ned counsel is entitled to o"n26.& s9uare +eters of the plaintiffLs share of thelot in 9uestion.
b* The undersi'ned counsel shall have ausufructuar- ri'ht for a period of ten )#%* -ears of
plaintiffsL share of the lot in 9uestion.c* /nd that all da+a'es accruin' to plaintiffs tobe paid b- the defendant is for the undersi'nedcounsel.)/nneA 3H3 of the Petition, Rollo, p. &<*
On Septe+ber #2, #262, the trial court handlin' !ivil!ase No. 1#$$&< ordered the annotation at the bac4 of T!T No. 7#7 of the Re'ister of Deeds of ue0on !it- ofthe respondent la"-erLs !ontract for Professional
Services dated /u'ust ;%, #262 si'ned b- petitionerilfredo >icudan and /urelio >icudan on his o"n behalfand on behalf of his dau'hter, petitioner !ristina>icudan1!a+pos. The said trial courtLs Order, bein' oneof t"o Orders bein' essentiall- challen'ed in this
petition, is reproduced belo"=
(efore the court for consideration is a Petition for /ttorne-Ls >ien filed b- /tt-. Teodoro D.Do+alanta, counsel for the plaintiff, pra-in' thathis attorne-Ls fees be annotated as a lien at the
bac4 of Transfer !ertificate of Title No. 7#7 of theRe'ister of Deeds of ue0on !it-, sub@ect +atterof this case.
or the protection of the plaintiffs, the courtre9uired the plaintiff /urelio >icudan as "ell as
his son to appear this +ornin'. Plaintiff /urelio>icudan to'ether "ith his son ilfredo >icudan,"ho appears to be intelli'ent and in fact hespea4s )the* n'lish lan'ua'e "ell, appeared.(oth /urelio and ilfredo >icudan +anifested
that the- have freel- and voluntaril- si'ned the!ontract for Professional Services, dated /u'ust;%, #262 and notari0ed before Notar- Public /+ado :arrovillas as Doc. No. ;$, Pa'e 7, (oo4
No. UIU, Series of #262.
!onsiderin' the +anifestation of plaintiff, /urelio>icudan and /lfredo )"ic * >icudan that the- haveentered freel- and voluntaril- in the said contractof professional services, let the sa+e beannotated at the bac4 of T!T 7#7 of the Re'ister of Deeds of ue0on !it-, upon pa-+ent of there9uired le'al fees. )!/ Decision, pp. 617B Rollo,pp. ;51;6*
The !ontract for Professional Services dated /u'ust ;%,#262 differs fro+ the earlier contractual provisions inthat it entitled the respondent la"-er to one1third )#;* of the sub@ect propert- or 2%.& s9uare +eters and providedfor usufructuar- ri'hts over the entire lot in 9uestion infavor of the respondent la"-erLs son, Teodoro M.
Do+alanta, Er. for an a'reed consideration. )/nneA 3E3of the PetitionB Rollo, p. &2*
On Eul- $&, #27&, the respondent la"-er filed a+otion e5 parte to a+end the Order dated Septe+ber
#2, #262 so as to confor+ "ith an additionalprofessional fee coverin' ;# s9uare +eters +ore of thelot for services rendered in !ivil !ase No. 1$75&& asevidenced b- a Deed of /bsolute Sale dated Ma- #,
#27; eAecuted b- /urelio >icudan in favor of therespondent la"-er.
On Septe+ber 5, #27&, the trial court ordered therespondent la"-er to sub+it a subdivision plan inconfor+it- "ith his attorne-Ls fees contract under "hichone1third )#;* of the propert- or 2%.& s9uare +eters"as alloted to hi+.
On Septe+ber $;, #27&, the respondent la"-er filed a+otion for reconsideration pra-in' for the a+end+ent of
the Order dated Septe+ber #2, #262 to confor+ "ith theDeed of /bsolute Sale dated Ma- #, #27; "hich "aseAecuted after the annotation of the ori'inal attorne-Lslien of 2%.& s9uare +eters.
On Septe+ber ;%, #27&, the trial court denied the
+otion on the 'round that the respondent la"-er cannotcollect attorne-Ls fees for other cases in the action forpartition.
On October <, #27&, the respondent la"-er filed asecond +otion for reconsideration of the Order dated
Septe+ber 5, #27& eAplainin' that "hat he sou'ht to beincluded in the Order dated Septe+ber #2, #262 is theadditional attorne-Ls fees for handlin' the rede+ptioncase "hich "as but a +ere offshoot of the partition case
and further +anifestin' that the additional ;# s9uare+eters as co+pensation for the rede+ption case +ustbe +er'ed "ith the 2%.& s9uare +eters for the partitioncase to enable the said respondent la"-er to co+pl-"ith the Order dated Septe+ber 5,#27& "hich directed
hi+ to sub+it a subdivision plan as re9uired.
On October $#, #27&, the trial court issued the secondOrder bein' assailed in this petition. The said Orderreads=
/ctin' on the 3Second Motion forReconsideration3 filed b- /tt-. TeodoroDo+alanta and findin' the sa+e to be @ustified,let an attorne-Ls lien be annotated in the title ofthe propert- for ;# s9uare +eters as attorne-Lsfees of said /tt-. Teodoro Do+alanta in addition
to the ori'inal 2%.& s9uare +eters. )!/ Decision,p. 7B Rollo, p. ;6*
On /u'ust $$, #275, +ore than ten )#%* +onths afterthe Orders of Septe+ber 5, #27& and October $#, #27&
had beco+e final and eAecutor-, the petitioners assubstituted heirs of the respondent la"-ersL deceasedclients filed a +otion to set aside orders on the 'roundthat the a"ard of professional fees coverin' #$#.&
s9uare +eters of the $6#.& s9uare +eter lot isunconscionable and eAcessive.
/fter the respondent la"-er filed his Opposition to theabove petitionersL +otion, the lo"er court, on /u'ust $2,#275, findin' that the petitioners as substituted plaintiffsare not in full a'ree+ent "ith the respondent la"-erLsclai+ for attorne-Ls fees, set aside its Orders datedSepte+ber 5, #27& and October $#, #27&.
On Septe+ber #5, #275, the respondent la"-er filed a
+otion for reconsideration stressin' the fact that thepa-+ent of the professional services "as pursuant to acontract "hich could no lon'er be disturbed or set asidebecause it has alread- been i+ple+ented and had sincethen beco+e final. This +otion "as denied on October;, #275.
On Nove+ber #&, #275, the respondent la"-er filed a+otion to set aside the orders dated /u'ust $2, #275and October ;, #275 reiteratin' his position that theOrders of Septe+ber 5, #27& and October $#, #27&
have beco+e final and are alread- i+ple+ented. Therespondent la"-er further as4ed for the +odification ofthe October $#, #27& Order to reflect 5%.;$ s9uare+eters instead of ;# s9uare +eters onl- since the
stipulation in the /dditional !ontract for ProfessionalServices entitled hi+ to 5%.;$ s9uare +eters.
/fter the petitionersL Opposition to the said +otion "asfiled, the trial court, on ebruar- $5, #276, rendered anOrder "ith the follo"in' dispositive portion=
HROR, this !ourt has no alternative butto set aside its orders of $2 /u'ust #275 and ;October #275 and declare its Orders of #2Septe+ber #262 and $# October #27&
irrevocabl- final and eAecutor-. )!/ Decision, p.&B Rollo, p. ;<*
On /ppeal, the !ourt of /ppeals ruled in favor of therespondent la"-er b- dis+issin' the appeal and thepra-ed for "rit of preli+inar- in@unction. Their
subse9uent +otion for reconsideration havin' beendeniedL, the petitioners filed the instant petition.
The petitioners fault the respondent !ourt for its failureto eAercise its inherent po"er to revie" and deter+inethe propriet- of the stipulated attorne-Ls fees in favor of
the respondent la"-er and accuse the respondentla"-er of havin' co++itted an unfair advanta'e or le'alfraud b- virtue of the !ontract for Professional Servicesdevised b- hi+ after the trial court a"arded hi+
attorne-Ls fees for P#,%%%.%% onl- instead of respectin'the trust and confidence of the hi'hest level reposed onhi+ considerin' the close blood and affinal relationshipbet"een hi+ and his clients.
The petitioners contend that under the a"ard forprofessional services, the- +a- have "on the case but"ould lose the entire propert- "on in liti'ation to theiruncle1la"-er. The- "ould be totall- deprived of theirhouse and lot and the recovered da+a'es considerin'that of the $6#.& s9uare +eters of the sub@ect lot, the
respondent la"-er is clai+in' #$#.& s9uare +eters andthe re+ainin' portion of #&% s9uare +eters "ould also'o to attorne-Ls fees since the said portion pertains tothe la"-erLs son b- "a- of usufruct for ten )#%* -ears.
The aforesaid sub+issions b- the petitioners +erit our
consideration.
It is a "ell1entrenched rule that attorne-Ls fees +a- beclai+ed in the ver- action in "hich the services in9uestion have been rendered or as an incident of the
+ain action. The fees +a- be properl- ad@ud'ed aftersuch liti'ation is ter+inated and the sub@ect of recover-is at the disposition of the court. )"ee !a+acho v. !ourtof /ppeals, #62 S!R/ 5%< J#272KB uirante v.
It is an e9uall- deepl-1rooted rule that contin'ent feesare not per "e prohibited b- la". The- are sanctioned b-!anon #; of the !anons of Professional thics and!anon $%, Rule $%.%# of the recentl- pro+ul'ated !odeof Professional Responsibilit-. Ho"ever, as "e haveheld in the case of Tanhueco + . De Du&o )#6$ S!R/65% J#272K*=
. . . hen it is sho"n that a contract for a
contin'ent fee "as obtained b- undue influenceeAercised b- the attorne- upon his client or b-an- fraud or i+position, or that the co+pensationis clearl- eAcessive, the !ourt +ust and "illprotect the a''rieved part-. )landa- v. ManilaRailroad !o., <& Phil. &<% J#2$;KB :re- v. Insular
>u+ber !o., 26 Phil. 7;; J#2&&K*.
In the case at bar, the respondent la"-er caused theannotation of his attorne-Ls fees lien in the +ain actionfor partition doc4eted as !ivil !ase No. 1#$$&< on the
basis of a !ontract for Professional Services dated /u'ust ;%, #262. e find reversible error in the !ourt of /ppealsL holdin' that=
hen the reasonableness of the appelleeLs lienas attorne-Ls fees over the properties of hisclients a"arded to hi+ b- the trial court had notbeen 9uestioned b- the client, and the saidorders had alread- beco+e final and eAecutor-,the sa+e could no lon'er be disturbed, not evenb- the court "hich rendered the+ )Taada v.!ourt of /ppeals, #;2 S!R/ <#2*. )!/ Decisionp. 6B Rollo, p. ;5*
On the contrar-, "e rule that the 9uestioned Orders
dated Septe+ber #2, #262 and October $#, #27& cannotbeco+e final as the- pertain to a contract for acontin'ent fee "hich is al"a-s sub@ect to the supervisionof the !ourt "ith re'ard to its reasonableness asune9uivocall- provided in Section #; of the !anons ofProfessional thics "hich reads=
#;. !ontin'ent ees.
/ contract for a contin'ent fee, "here sanctionedb- la", should be reasonable under all thecircu+stances of the case includin' the ris4 and
uncertaint- of the co+pensation, butshould alwa#"be sub@ect to the supervision of acourt, as to its reasonableness. )+phasissupplied*.
There is no dispute in the instant case that the attorne-Lsfees clai+ed b- the respondent la"-er are in the natureof a contin'ent fee. There is nothin' irre'ular about theeAecution of a "ritten contract for professional serviceseven after the ter+ination of a case as lon' as it isbased on a previous a'ree+ent on contin'ent fees b-the parties concerned and as lon' as the said contractdoes not contain stipulations "hich are contrar- to la",'ood +orals, 'ood custo+s, public polic- or publicorder.
/lthou'h the !ontract for Professional Services dated /u'ust ;%, #262 "as apparentl- voluntaril- si'ned b-the late /urelio >icudan for hi+self and on behalf of hisdau'hter, petitioner !ristina >icudan1!a+pos and b- thepetitioner ilfredo >icudan "ho both +anifested in open
court that the- 'ave their free and "illin' consent to thesaid contract "e cannot allo" the said contract to standas the la" bet"een the parties involved considerin' thatthe rule that in the presence of a contract forprofessional services dul- eAecuted b- the parties
thereto, the sa+e beco+es the la" bet"een the saidparties is not absolute but ad+its an eAceptionthat thestipulations therein are not contrar- to la", 'ood +orals,'ood custo+s, public polic- or public order
)"ee Philippine /+erican >ife Insurance !o+pan- v.Pineda, #6& S!R/ <#5 J#272KB S-@uco v. !ourt of /ppeals, #6$ S!R/ ### J#272K*.
nder !anon $% of the !ode of ProfessionalResponsibilit-, a la"-er shall char'e onl- fair andreasonable fees. In deter+inin' "hether or not thela"-er fees are fair and reasonable, Rule $%1%# of thesa+e !ode enu+erates the factors to be considered inresolvin' the said issue. The- are as follo"s=
a* The ti+e spent and the eAtent of the servicesrendered or re9uiredB
b* The novelt- and difficult- of the 9uestionsinvolvedB
c* The i+portance of the sub@ect +atterB
d* The s4ill de+andedB
e* The probabilit- of losin' other e+plo-+ent asa result of acceptance of the proferred caseB
f* The custo+ar- char'es for si+ilar servicesand the schedule of fees of the I(P !hapter to"hich he belon'sB
'* The a+ount involved in the controvers- andthe benefits resultin' to the client fro+ theserviceB
h* The contin'enc- or certaint- of co+pensationB
i* The character of the e+plo-+ent, "hetheroccasional or establishedB and
@* The professional standin' of the la"-er.
/ si+ilar provision is contained under Section $<, Rule#;7 of the Revised Rules of !ourt "hich partl- states
that=
Sec. $<. Co&pen"ation o) attorne#"B a,ree&ent
a" to )ee". /n attorne- shall be entitled tohave and recover fro+ his client no +ore than areasonable co+pensation for his services, "ith a
vie" to the i+portance of the sub@ect +atter ofthe controvers-, the eAtent of the servicesrendered, and the professional standin' of theattorne-. . . . / "ritten contract for services shallcontrol the a+ount to be paid therefor unless
found b- the court to be unconscionable orunreasonable.
/ll that the respondent la"-er handled for his deceased
sister and brother1in1la" "as a si+ple case of partition"hich necessitated no special s4ill nor an- unusual effortin its preparation. The subse9uent case for rede+ption"as ad+ittedl- but an offshot of the partition case.!onsiderin' the close blood and affinal relationshipbet"een the respondent la"-er and his clients, there isno doubt that /tt-. Do+alanta too4 advanta'e of thesituation to pro+ote his o"n personal interests insteadof protectin' the le'al interests of his clients. / carefulperusal of the provisions of the contract for professionalservices in 9uestion readil- sho"s that "hat the
petitioners "on "as a p-rrhic victor- on account of thefact that despite the successful turnout of the partitioncase, the- are no" practicall- left "ith nothin' of the"hole sub@ect lot "on in the liti'ation. This is becauseaside fro+ the #$#.& s9uare +eters a"arded to /tt-.
Do+alanta as attorne-Ls fees, the said contract forprofessional services provides that the re+ainin' portionshall pertain to the respondent la"-erLs son b- "a- ofusufruct for ten )#%* -ears. There should never be aninstance "here a la"-er 'ets as attorne-Ls fees the
entire propert- involved in the liti'ation. It isunconscionable for the victor in liti'ation to loseever-thin' he "on to the fees of his o"n la"-er.
The respondent la"-erLs ar'u+ent that it is not he buthis son Teodoro M. Do+alanta, Er. "ho is clai+in' theusufructuar- ri'ht over the re+ainin' portion of thesub@ect lot is inaccurate. The records sho" that the+atter of usufruct is tied up "ith this case since thebasis for the said usufructuar- ri'ht is the contract forprofessional services the reasonableness of "hich isbein' 9uestioned in this petition. e find the ten1-earusufruct over the sub@ect lot part and parcel of theattorne-Ls fees bein' clai+ed b- the respondent la"-er.
In resolvin' the issue of reasonableness of theattorne-Ls fees, "e uphold the ti+e1honoured le'al+aAi+ that a la"-er shall at all ti+es uphold the inte'rit-and di'nit- of the le'al profession so that his basic idealbeco+es one of renderin' service and securin' @ustice,not +one-1+a4in'. or the "orst scenario that can ever
happen to a client is to lose the liti'ated propert- to hisla"-er in "ho+ an trust and confidence "ere besto"edat the ver- inception of the le'al controvers-. e find the!ontract for Professional Services dated /u'ust ;%,#262, unconscionable and unreasonable. The a+ount of
P$%,%%%.%% as attorne-Ls fees, in lieu of the #$#.&s9uare +eters a"arded to the respondent la"-er andthe ten1-ear usufructuar- ri'ht over the re+ainin'portion of #&% s9uare +eters b- the respondent la"-erLs
son, is, in the opinion of this !ourt, co++ensurate to theservices rendered b- /tt-. Do+alanta.
HROR, IN VI O TH OR:OIN:, theinstant petition is :R/NTD. The !ourt of /ppealsLdecision of Septe+ber #$, #272 is hereb- RVRSDand ST /SID. /tt-. Do+alanta is a"arded reasonableattorne-Ls fees in the a+ount of P$%,%%%.%%.
