Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 101 views

    Pineda vs. de Jesus

    Uploaded by

    heyooo
    The Supreme Court of the Philippines partially granted Vinson Pineda's petition regarding a case where his former lawyers attempted to charge him additional legal fees of 50 million pesos after the conclusion of his nullity case. The Court found that while the regional trial court had jurisdiction over the legal fee claim, the lawyers' demand was unjustified and constituted unconscionable greed given that they had already been adequately compensated through cash payments, free services and products from Pineda's business. The Court therefore deleted the award of additional attorney's fees that had been granted by the lower courts.

    Copyright:

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

    Pineda vs. de Jesus

    Uploaded by

    heyooo
    101 views3 pages
    The Supreme Court of the Philippines partially granted Vinson Pineda's petition regarding a case where his former lawyers attempted to charge him additional legal fees of 50 million pesos after the conclusion of his nullity case. The Court found that while the regional trial court had jurisdiction over the legal fee claim, the lawyers' demand was unjustified and constituted unconscionable greed given that they had already been adequately compensated through cash payments, free services and products from Pineda's business. The Court therefore deleted the award of additional attorney's fees that had been granted by the lower courts.

    Original Description:

    case

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court of the Philippines partially granted Vinson Pineda's petition regarding a case where his former lawyers attempted to charge him additional legal fees of 50 million pesos after the conclusion of his nullity case. The Court found that while the regional trial court had jurisdiction over the legal fee claim, the lawyers' demand was unjustified and constituted unconscionable greed given that they had already been adequately compensated through cash payments, free services and products from Pineda's business. The Court therefore deleted the award of additional attorney's fees that had been granted by the lower courts.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    101 views3 pages

    Pineda vs. de Jesus

    Uploaded by

    heyooo
    The Supreme Court of the Philippines partially granted Vinson Pineda's petition regarding a case where his former lawyers attempted to charge him additional legal fees of 50 million pesos after the conclusion of his nullity case. The Court found that while the regional trial court had jurisdiction over the legal fee claim, the lawyers' demand was unjustified and constituted unconscionable greed given that they had already been adequately compensated through cash payments, free services and products from Pineda's business. The Court therefore deleted the award of additional attorney's fees that had been granted by the lower courts.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    You are on page 1of 3

    11/9/2016

    G.R.No.155224

    TodayisWednesday,November09,2016

    RepublicofthePhilippines
    SUPREMECOURT
    Manila
    SECONDDIVISION
    G.R.No.155224August23,2006
    VINSONB.PINEDA,Petitioner,
    vs.
    ATTY. CLODUALDO C. DE JESUS, ATTY. CARLOS AMBROSIO and ATTY. EMMANUEL MARIANO,
    Respondents.
    DECISION
    CORONA,J.:
    The subject of this petition for review is the April 30, 2002 decision1 of the Court of Appeals in CAG.R. CV No.
    68080whichmodifiedtheorder2 ofthe Regional TrialCourt(RTC)ofPasigCity,Branch151,inJDRCCaseNo.
    2568entitledMa.AuroraD.Pinedav.VinsonB.Pineda.
    Thefactsfollow.
    OnApril6,1993,AuroraPinedafiledanactionfordeclarationofnullityofmarriageagainstpetitionerVinsonPineda
    in the RTC of Pasig City, Branch 151, docketed as JDRC Case No. 2568. Petitioner was represented by
    respondentsAttys.ClodualdodeJesus,CarlosAmbrosioandEmmanuelMariano.
    Duringthependencyofthecase,Auroraproposedasettlementtopetitionerregardinghervisitationrightsovertheir
    minor child and the separation of their properties. The proposal was accepted by petitioner and both parties
    subsequentlyfiledamotionforapprovaloftheiragreement.Thiswasapprovedbythetrialcourt.OnNovember25,
    1998,themarriagebetweenpetitionerandAuroraPinedawasdeclarednullandvoid.
    Throughout the proceedings, respondent counsels were wellcompensated.3 They, including their relatives and
    friends,evenavailedoffreeproductsandtreatmentsfrompetitionersdermatologyclinic.Thisnotwithstanding,they
    billedpetitioneradditionallegalfeesamountingtoP16.5million4whichthelatter,however,refusedtopay.Instead,
    petitionerissuedthemseveralcheckstotalingP1.12million5as"fullpaymentforsettlement."6
    Stillnotsatisfied,respondentsfiledinthesametrialcourt7amotion
    forpaymentoflawyersfeesforP50million.8
    OnApril14,2000,thetrialcourtorderedpetitionertopayP5milliontoAtty.deJesus,P2milliontoAtty.Ambrosio
    andP2milliontoAtty.Mariano.
    On appeal, the Court of Appeals reduced the amount as follows: P1 million to Atty. de Jesus, P500,000 to Atty.
    AmbrosioandP500,000toAtty.Mariano.Themotionforreconsiderationwasdenied.Hence,thisrecourse.
    Theissuesraisedinthispetitionare:
    (1)whetherthePasigRTC,Branch151hadjurisdictionovertheclaimforadditionallegalfeesand
    (2)whetherrespondentswereentitledtoadditionallegalfees.
    First,alawyermayenforcehisrighttohisfeesbyfilingthenecessarypetitionasanincidentofthemainactionin
    which his services were rendered or in an independent suit against his client. The former is preferable to avoid
    multiplicityofsuits.9
    ThePasigRTC,Branch151,wherethecaseforthedeclarationofnullityofmarriagewasfiled,hadjurisdictionover
    themotionforthepaymentoflegalfees.RespondentssoughttocollectP50millionwhichwasequivalentto10%of
    http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_155224_2006.html

    1/3

    11/9/2016

    G.R.No.155224

    the value of the properties awarded to petitioner in that case. Clearly, what respondents were demanding was
    additionalpaymentforlegalservicesrenderedinthesamecase.
    Second, the professional engagement between petitioner and respondents was governed by the principle of
    quantummeruitwhichmeans"asmuchasthelawyerdeserves."10Therecoveryofattorneysfeesonthisbasisis
    permitted,asinthiscase,wherethereisnoexpressagreementforthepaymentofattorneysfees.Basically,itisa
    legal mechanism which prevents an unscrupulous client from running away with the fruits of the legal services of
    counselwithoutpayingforit.Inthesamevein,itavoidsunjustenrichmentonthepartofthelawyerhimself.
    Further, Rule 20.4 of the Code of Professional Responsibility advises lawyers to avoid controversies with clients
    concerningtheircompensationandtoresorttojudicialactiononlytopreventimposition,injusticeorfraud.Suitsto
    collectfeesshouldbeavoidedandshouldbefiledonlywhencircumstancesforcelawyerstoresorttoit.11
    Inthecaseatbar,respondentsmotionforpaymentoftheirlawyersfeeswasnotmeanttocollectwhatwasjustly
    duethemthefactwas,theyhadalreadybeenadequatelypaid.
    DemandingP50millionontopofthegeneroussumsandperksalreadygiventothemwasanactofunconscionable
    greedwhichisshockingtothisCourt.
    Aslawyers,respondentsshouldberemindedthattheyaremembersofanhonorableprofession,theprimaryvision
    ofwhichisjustice.Itisrespondentsdespicablebehaviorwhichgiveslawyeringabadnameinthemindsofsome
    people. The vernacular has a word for it: nagsasamantala. The practice of law is a decent profession and not a
    moneymakingtrade.Compensationshouldbebutamereincident.12
    Respondents claim for additional legal fees was not justified. They could not charge petitioner a fee based on
    percentage,absentanexpressagreementtothateffect.Thepaymentstothemincash,checks,freeproductsand
    services from petitioners business all of which were not denied by respondents more than sufficed for the
    worktheydid.The"fullpaymentforsettlement"13shouldhavedischargedpetitionersobligationtothem.
    The power of this Court to reduce or even delete the award of attorneys fees cannot be denied. Lawyers are
    officersoftheCourtandtheyparticipateinthefundamentalfunctionofadministeringjustice.14Whentheytooktheir
    oath,theysubmittedthemselvestotheauthorityoftheCourtandsubjectedtheirprofessionalfeestojudicialcontrol.
    15

    WHEREFORE,thepetitionisherebyPARTIALLYGRANTED.ThedecisionoftheCourtofAppealsdatedApril30,
    2002 in CAG.R. CV No. 68080 is hereby MODIFIED. The award of additional attorneys fees in favor of
    respondentsisherebyDELETED.
    SOORDERED.
    RENATOC.CORONA
    AssociateJustice
    WECONCUR:
    REYNATOS.PUNO
    AssociateJustice
    Chairperson
    ANGELINASANDOVALGUTIERREZ,ADOLFOS.AZCUNA
    AssociateJusticeAssociateJustice
    CANCIOC.GARCIA
    AssociateJustice
    ATTESTATION
    IattestthattheconclusionsintheaboveDecisionhadbeenreachedinconsultationbeforethecasewasassigned
    tothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.
    REYNATOS.PUNO
    AssociateJustice
    Chairperson,SecondDivision
    http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_155224_2006.html

    2/3

    11/9/2016

    G.R.No.155224

    CERTIFICATION
    PursuanttoSection13,ArticleVIIIoftheConstitution,andtheDivisionChairpersonsAttestation,Icertifythatthe
    conclusionsintheabovedecisionhadbeenreachedinconsultationbeforethecasewasassignedtothewriterof
    theopinionoftheCourtsDivision.
    ARTEMIOV.PANGANIBAN
    ChiefJustice

    Footnotes
    1PennedbyAssociateJusticeAmelitaG.TolentinoandconcurredinbyAssociateJusticesRubenT.Reyes

    (nowPresidingJusticeoftheCourtofAppeals)andRenatoC.DacudaooftheEighthDivisionoftheCourtof
    Appeals,rollo,pp.4857.
    2PennedbyActingPresidingJudgeRodolfoR.BonifaciooftheRegionalTrialCourtofPasigCity,Branch

    151,rollo,pp.99102.
    3 Monthly fees and other expenses which respondents claimed to be incidental to the case approximated

    P5,853,058.75,rollo,p.16.
    4P12.5milliontoAtty.deJesusP2milliontoAtty.AmbrosioandP2milliontoAtty.Mariano.
    5Paymentsincheck:a.)ToAtty.deJesusP500,000onDecember18,1998

    P500,000onJanuary25,1999
    b.)ToAtty.MarianoP30,000onDecember20,1998
    c.)ToAtty.AmbrosioP20,000onDecember11,1998
    P30,000onDecember18,1998
    P20,000onDecember22,1998
    P20,000onJanuary4,1999
    6Persummaryoffeespreparedbypetitionerandwhichwasnotdisputedbyrespondents.
    7RTCofPasig,Branch151.
    8Representing10%ofthevalueofthepropertiesgrantedtopetitionerinthecasefordeclarationof

    nullityofmarriage.
    9 Agpalo, Legal and Judicial Ethics, Seventh Edition (2002), Rex Bookstore, Inc., p. 410, citing Palanca v.

    Pecson,94Phil.419(1954).
    10Id.,p.395.
    11Id.,p.408,citingtheCommentsofIBPCommitteethatdraftedtheCode,p.112.
    12Malecdanv.Pekas,A.C.No.5830,26January2004,421SCRA7.
    13IntheamountofP1.2million.
    14Sesbrenov.CourtofAppeals,314Phil.884(1995),citingSumaoangv.Judge,RTC,Br.XXXI,Guimba,

    NuevaEcija,G.R.No.78173,26October1992,215SCRA136.
    15Taganasv.NationalLaborRelationsCommission,G.R.No.118746,7September1995,248SCRA133.
    TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

    http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_155224_2006.html

    3/3

    You might also like