In shopping for a lawyer in the Philippines, the first thing the usually comes to mind is how much a

lawyer charges. Generally, the professional fees of a lawyer depend on the nature and complexity of
the case, the financial capacity of the client, the extent of work required, among other factors. The
usual legal fee arrangements in the Philippines are: initial consultation fee, fixed retainer, time-based
charging, acceptance fee, and contingent fee arrangements.
The initial consultation fee is what you can expect the attorney to bill you for your initial consultation
with him or her. While some lawyers offer free consultation, some charge initial consultation fees.
There are other attorneys who bill on their usual or reduced hourly rate. There is no standard practice
in the Philippines. Hence, the best thing to do before going for an initial consultation is to call before
making the appointment.
The fixed retainer fee is a predetermined fee paid on a lump sum, in advance of any legal work to be
performed. In corporations, for example, a general corporate retainer would include general corporate
services such as drafting minutes and board resolutions, secretarys certifications, ant the like. There
are also specialized retainer fee arrangements depending on the requirements of the client. It can be
expected of course, that in specialized retainer arrangements, the fixed retainer fees are much higher.
Time-based charging is a fee arrangement where the lawyer bills based on his given hourly rate. The
client is billed based on the actual time spent by the lawyer. At the end of every billing cycle, which in
most cases is on a monthly basis, the lawyer sums up the actual time he or she spent for your case,
doing research, answering your calls, consultations, meetings, etc. The bill is computed by adding up
the total time spent by the attorney multiplied by the latters given hourly rate. Before entering into
such arrangements, you may want to ask the lawyer for an estimate of how much time it would take
to complete the activity.
The acceptance fee is the fee charged by the lawyer for merely accepting the case. The rationale
behind this is, once the lawyer agrees to act on behalf of a client, he generally loses the opportunity to
handle cases for the opposing party. Thus, a lawyers acceptance of a case would mean that he is
forgoing prospective work for the other party. The acceptance fee is normally applied in litigation, and
coupled with a per stage or per activity type of billing, where the lawyer divides his professional fees
depending on the stage of the proceedings.
In contingent fee arrangements, the lawyer gets paid only if the legal activity is successful. In most
cases, contingent fee arrangements are utilized by clients who cannot afford the services of a lawyer.
In such case, the lawyer gets to collect a certain portion of the property or money involved, if he
succeeds in the case or activity. Because of the risk of not getting paid at all, lawyers tend to collect
between 30%-50% of whatever the client gets.
In most cases, out-of-pocket expenses such as filing fees, travel expenses, printing etc., are excluded
from such arrangements. Since these expenses are incurred for the benefit of the client, they are the
clients responsibility. Of course, you can always ask for a cap on expenses.

The person looking for a lawyer must bear in mind that, generally, professional fees are subject to
negotiation. You can even try to negotiate terms of payment, if this is possible.
For more information or legal advice in the Philippines, you may e-mail me at knicolas@ndvlaw.com or
visit our website www.ndvlaw.com.
The information provided in this website should not be construed as legal advice or opinion. This is for
information purposes only and is not intended to solicit or create, and does not create, an attorneyclient relationship between Atty. Nicolas or NDV Law and any person or entity. Please consult with a
lawyer about your concerns.

http://www.philippineattorney.com/

This is prepared by the Lepiten and Bojos Law Office to orient clients on attorneys fees. To prevent any
misunderstanding between lawyer and client, it is encouraged that the client of the Law Office read these notes.
This includes the policies and practices adopted by this Law Office. Most of these policies are culled from the usual
and standard practice of Filipino Trial Lawyers.
Although this orientation is a guide to clients, there are instances when some policies may be modified to adjust to the
special circumstances of the client or the case.

Fee arrangement agreement before any legal services is

undertaken.
There must be a prior agreement relating to attorneys fees before the commencement of any work. This applies to
new cases or legal work from new clients or to new cases from old clients. If possible, the agreement must include an
estimate of the possible and probable total cost of the case or legal work.
If for whatever reason, fee arrangement has not been discussed or the lawyer might have forgotten to bring it up, it is
advised that the client initiates the talk on fee arrangement to prevent any misunderstanding.
Special proceedings or incidental cases are separate from the main case, thus, different fee arrangement is
necessary.
It is possible that out of the main case, there are new and separate proceedings that will branch out like certiorari,
injunctions and prohibitions and other similar cases. These cases are incidental to the main case but the ruling is
prejudicial or crucial to the main case handled by the law office.

Acceptance Fee and Subsequent Attorneys Fees

Acceptance fee is the payment of the initial legal services such as the legal research, preparation and filing of the
initiatory pleadings, and preparatory activities in connection with the case. Acceptance fee is the initial retainers fee
asked by the lawyer to file, pursue or defend a case.
The Law Office requires for the payment of an acceptance fee from the client before it will start to render legal
services. The fees depend on the kind of case, the legal work needed and the difficulty of the subject matter.
It is understood that attorneys fees will be charged for subsequent legal services like filing of important pleadings and
motions like formal offer of exhibits, memorandum, demurrer to evidence and similar pleadings. (excluding motion to
cancel hearing, resetting and notice of change of address and similar pleadings).

In cases of appeal, the Law Office requires for the payment of legal services for the preparation and filing of
appellants or appellee's brief.
Appearance Fee
Appearance Fee shall be charged every time the lawyer attends to the hearing of the case and all other meetings or
conferences in connection with the case requiring the personal appearance of the lawyer. .
All Expenses and Fees of Litigation are for the Account of the Client
It is expected that there are operational expenses that will be incurred by reason of the case handled or the legal work
performed. These expenses shall be for the account of the client.
These are the photocopying, mailing expenses and similar expenses.
In most instances where the expenses involved a substantial amount, the client needs to deposit and give the amount
to the Law Office. These are expenses for publication, filing fees, and reproduction cost in appeal cases and other
similar expenses.
The client will be asked to pay all the incidental cost relating to the case like transcript of records, photocopying,
mailing, and other court fees.

Rule 141 of the Rules of Court provides for Legal Fees

For details of the legal fees required by the Supreme Court and other lower courts, Rule 144 of the Rules of Court
provides for the amount of fees.
Attorneys fees found in the Judgment shall be for the lawyer
There are judgments, which provides for attorneys fees to be paid by the losing party. In this case, the amount shall
be for the lawyer of the winning party.
Retainers of the Law Office enjoy certain privileges
Retainers of the Law Office have special arrangement and their relationship is defined in each of the retainer
contracts. In the absence of any stipulations, then, the general policy of the Law Office shall be adopted.

Attorneys Fees varied depending on various factors.

It is very hard to have a fixed attorneys fees because it is dependent on many factors. This explains why lawyers
cannot categorically fix an amount not unless she would be able know the details of the case and the circumstances
relating to the issue.
In the case of Mambualao Lumber Co. vs. PNB, GR No. L- 22973, the following are the factors in determining
attorneys fees:
1.

the time and labor required, the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved and the skill required properly
to conduct the cause

2.

whether the acceptance of employment in the particular case will preclude the lawyers appearance for
others in cases likely to arise out of the transaction, and in which there is a reasonable expectation that
otherwise he would be employed, or will involve the loss of other business while employed in a particular
case of antagonism with other clients.

3.

the customary charges of the bar for similar services (Attorneys fees provided by the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines) See IBP Schedule of Attorneys Fees.

4.

the amount involved in the controversy and the benefits resulting to the client from the service

5.

the contingency or the certainty of the compensations; and

6.

the character of the employment whether casual or for an established or constant client.

It will all depend on the lawyer you will hire. There are lawyers who charge reasonable fees. Some are
just too expensive.
Various circumstances should be considered in determining the lawyer's fee, more particularly, the
acceptance fee, such as: (1) difficulty of the case; (2) status of the lawyer; (3) capacity of the client
to pay; (4) amount or value of the property involved; etc., etc. For cases which are not that
complicated, acceptance fee can range from 25000 to 80000. Other lawyers charge even higher.
The appearance fee also depends on the lawyer and the proximity of the court where the hearing will
take place. It can range from 2500 to 5000. Others charge even higher. For provincial hearings, the
appearance fee is certainly more expensive.
Of course, you can always bargain with the lawyer. You can even try if he/she will accomodate
payment of acceptance fee on installment.

http://www.pinoylawyer.org/t976-legal-fees

Acceptance Fee Refers To The Charge Imposed By The Lawyer For Merely
Accepting The Case. This Is Because Once The Lawyer Agrees To
Represent A Client, He Is Precluded From Handling Cases Of The
Opposing Party Based On The Prohibition On Conflict Of Interest
http://thelawyerspost.net/acceptance-fee-of-a-lawyer/

The Case:
Corazon alleged that he hired the services of Atty. Glenn C. Gacott (now
disbarred) in a case for Grave Slander field against her before the MCTC
of Puerto Princesa City. The latter charged her an acceptance fee of
P10,000.00. Shen then paid him the amount of P5,000.00 as partial
payment for the acceptance fee. When she asked him to draft a Motion
to Reduce Bail Bond, Atty. Gacott refused, claiming that it was beyond
the scope of his retainer services, thus she was constrained to request
one Rolly Calbentos to prepare it for her. On January 31, 1997, she paid
the remaining balance of P5,000.00 to Atty. Gacott. When she asked for
a receipt, he refused, saying there was no need for it. After the
arraignment and preliminary conference, however, Atty. Gacott neglected
his duties as counsel and failed to attend any of the hearing before the
MTC. Because of his frequent absences, Judge Dilig appointed a
counsel de oficio to represent Corazon. Atty. Gacott, however, refused
to refund the amount she gave him as acceptance fee. In his defense,
Atty. Gacott alleged that Corazon approached him and represented
herself as an indigent party in several cases (5 cases). He agreed to

represent her subject to payment of an acceptance fee of P5,000.00 per

case and appearance fee of P500 for each court appearance. He
prepared the Motion for Reduction of Bail which they filed before the
MTC; however, Corazon asked him to negotiate with the MTC judge to
ensure the grant of the Motion, to which he refused, averring that he is
only a lawyer, not a fixer. This irked Corazon, who threatened that she
will replace him with a certain Atty. Roland Pay. The complainant was
placated when the motion was eventually granted. During the hearing of
August 19, 1997, he was not present as he was not able to receive a
copy of the notice of hearing, which reason he explained when required
to submit a written explanation by the MTC. After the complainant
informed him that she is terminating her services as her lawyer, she
withdrew all case records on October 30, 1997, and the trial court later
issued an order relieving him of his duties as counsel to complainant.
The IBP Investigating Commissioner recommended the dismissal of the
complaint for disbarment against Atty. Gacott, but recommended that he
return the payment of attorneys fee to Corazon in the amount of
P5,000.00, opining that espondent cannot be held liable for
abandonment or neglect of duty because it was the complainant who
discharged the respondent for loss of trust and confidence. This was
confirmed by the act of the complainant in withdrawing all her records
from the law office of the respondent. Furthermore, the Investigating
Commissioner said that absent evidence showing that the respondent
committed abandonment or neglect of duty, the presumption of regularity
should prevail in favor of the respondent. Since he did not perform
substantial legal work on behalf of the complainant, Atty. Gacott should
return the P5,000.00 to complainant. The IBP Board of Governors
adopted the report and recommendation, and denied the motion for
reconsideration of Atty. Gacott.

The Issue:
Whether or not Atty. Gacott should return to complainant the P5,000.00
acceptance fee.
The Ruling:
We find that the respondent did not commit any fault or negligence in the
performance of his obligations under the retainer agreement which was
wilfully terminated by the complainant on the ground of loss of trust and
confidence. As held by the Investigating Commissioner, the evidence on
record shows that the respondent is not liable for abandonment or
neglect of duty.
However, we disagree with the conclusion of the Investigating
Commissioner that the respondent should return the payment of the
attorneys fee to the complainant in the amount of P5,000.
Firstly, the Investigating Commissioner seriously erred in referring to the
amount to be returned by the respondent as attorneys fee. Relevantly,
we agree with the respondent that there is a distinction between
attorneys fee and acceptance fee.
It is well-settled that attorneys fee is understood both in its ordinary and
extraordinary concept.1 In its ordinary sense, attorneys fee refers to the
reasonable compensation paid to a lawyer by his client for legal services
rendered. Meanwhile, in its extraordinary concept, attorneys fee is
awarded by the court to the successful litigant to be paid by the losing
party as indemnity for damages.2 In the present case, the Investigating
Commissioner referred to the attorneys fee in its ordinary concept.
On the other hand, acceptance fee refers to the charge imposed by the
lawyer for merely accepting the case. This is because once the lawyer
agrees to represent a client, he is precluded from handling cases of the

opposing party based on the prohibition on conflict of interest. Thus, he

incurs an opportunity cost by merely accepting the case of the client
which is therefore indemnified by the payment of acceptance fee. Since
the acceptance fee only seeks to compensate the lawyer for the lost
opportunity, it is not measured by the nature and extent of the legal
services rendered.
In the present case, based on a simple reading of the Official Receipt
dated August 20, 1996, the parties clearly intended the payment of
P5,000 to serve as acceptance fee of the respondent, and not attorneys
fee. Moreover, both parties expressly claimed that they intended such
payment as the acceptance fee of the respondent. Absent any other
evidence showing a contrary intention of the parties, we find that the
Investigating Commissioner gravely erred in referring to the amount to
be returned by the respondent as attorneys fee.
Since the Investigating Commissioner made an erroneous reference to
attorneys fee, he therefore mistakenly concluded that the respondent
should return the same as he did not perform any substantial legal work
on behalf of the complainant. As previously mentioned, the payment of
acceptance fee does not depend on the nature and extent of the legal
services rendered.
Secondly, the respondent did not commit any fault or negligence which
would entail the return of the acceptance fee.
Once a lawyer receives the acceptance fee for his legal services, he is
expected to serve his client with competence, and to attend to his clients
cause with diligence, care and devotion.3 In Cario v. Atty. De Los
Reyes,4 the respondent lawyer who failed to file a complaint-affidavit

before the prosecutors office, returned the P10,000 acceptance fee paid
to him. Moreover, he was admonished by the Court to be more careful in
the performance of his duty to his clients. Meanwhile, in VoluntadRamirez v. Bautista,5 we ordered the respondent lawyer to return the
P14,000 acceptance fee because he did nothing to advance his clients
cause during the six-month period that he was engaged as counsel.
In the present case, the complainant alleged that she requested the
respondent to draft a Motion to Reduce Bail Bond which was denied by
the latter. She also claimed that the respondent failed to attend any of
the hearings before the MTC. Thus, the complainant filed the present
complaint for disbarment on the ground of abandonment or neglect of
duty. On the other hand, the respondent denied the allegation that he
failed to draft the Motion to Reduce Bail Bond and submitted a copy of
the MTC Order6 dated August 28, 1996 granting the motion to reduce
bail. He also justified his failure to attend the hearings before the MTC to
the failure of the process server to provide him with a Notice of Hearing.
Other than her bare allegations, the complainant failed to present any
evidence to support her claim that the respondent committed
abandonment or neglect of duty. Thus, we are constrained to affirm the
factual findings of the Investigating Commissioner that the presumption
of regularity should prevail in favor of the respondent. Absent any fault or
negligence on the part of the respondent, we see no legal basis for the
order of the Investigating Commissioner to return the attorneys fee
(acceptance fee) of P5,000.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is hereby GRANTED.
Resolution No. XVII-2007-115 and Resolution No. XIX-2010-544 of the
IBP Board of Governors insofar as they ordered the respondent to return
the attorneys fee (acceptance fee) to the complainant in the amount of
Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000) are REVERSED and SET ASIDE.

SO ORDERED.
VILLARAMA, JR., J.:
Peralta, (Acting Chairperson), Perez, Perlas-Bernabe, and Jardeleza,
JJ., concur.

THIRD DIVISION, A.C. No. 5067, June 29,

2015, CORAZON M. DALUPAN,
COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. GLENN C.
GACOTT,RESPONDENT.

Traders Royal Bank Employees Union-Independent v. NLRC, 336 Phil.

705, 712 (1997).
2
Ortiz v. San Miguel Corporation, 582 Phil. 627, 640 (2008).
3
Hernandez v. Padilla, A.C. No. 9387, June 20, 2012, 674 SCRA 1, 8;
See Del Mundo v. Capistrano, A.C. No. 6903, April 16, 2012, 669 SCRA
462, 468; Reyes v. Atty. Vitan, 496 Phil. 1, 4 (2005).
4
414 Phil. 667 (2001).
5
A.C. No. 6733, October 10, 2012, 683 SCRA 327, 335.
6
Rollo, p. 127.
1