ALBANO VS. COLOMA - A.C. No. 528 October 11, 1967

ALBANO VS.
COLOMA
A.C. No. 528 October 11, 1967
(Canon 13-Canon of Professional Ethics; Canon 20, Rule 20.1 CPR; Contingency Fees)
FACTS
Perpetua Coloma, a member of the Philippine Bar, was counsel for complainant, Angel Albano, and his mother,
Delfina Aquino, in a civil case (Civil Case No. 4147) of the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Norte during the
Japanese occupation. In a letter dated June 20, 1962 addressed to the court, Albano filed a complaint against
Coloma stating that Coloma failed to expedite the hearing and termination of the civil case, and as a result had
another lawyer represent them. Albano alleged that Coloma intervened in the case to collect her attorney's fees
where the latter presented in exhibit a document (attached to Albano’s complaint)showing that they as well as
their co-plaintiffs in the case promised to pay her a contingent fee of 33-¹/3% of whatever could be recovered
whether in land or damages. Albano denied his signature appearing on said document, and the writing after the
name of his mother were not made by them. Albano’s prayer was to disbar Coloma from the practice of her
profession as a lawyer.
Coloma was ordered by the court, in a resolution dated July 20, 1962, to give her answer to the complaint. In
her answer on September 4, 1962, Coloma denied that she did nothing to expedite the hearing and termination
of such civil case as the record would show :
 that she filed "more than twenty (20) papers and pleadings, went to trial for several days and with the
assistance of her sister, Atty. Oliva D. Coloma;
 obtained a favorable judgment in the Court of First Instance for the petitioner and his co-plaintiffs and
filed with the Honorable Court of Appeals a thirty-five (35) page brief, finished after careful,
conscientious and exhaustive study and preparation.
Coloma also attached a copy of the favorable decision rendered by Judge Simeon Ramos of November 10, 1948
(Annex 1, Answer) the decision of the Court of Appeals promulgated on October 13, 1950, confirming the
above favorable decision, which was penned by the then Justice Gutierrez David (Annex 2, Answer); and the
dismissal of a petition for certiorari to review such decision in the resolution of this Court of January 10, 1951
(Annex 4, Answer). Then a reference to a decision by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. 10563-R, the
complainant, Albano, as one of the plaintiffs having appealed from an order of the lower court, sustaining her
lien upon the judgment as well as "her share of one-third (¹/3) of the lands adjudicated".
The matter was referred to the Solicitor General for investigation.
ISSUE
Whether or not Perpetua Coloma is entitled to compensation of her services.
RULING
In the opinion of the Court of Appeals penned by Justice Sanchez, now a member of this Court, an evaluation of
Coloma’s service was made thus:
"Appellee (Coloma) served as plaintiffs' counsel for a period of about seven years. The record shows that she
was diligent in her work. That she had rendered valuable services cannot be doubted. In fact, the final decision
favorable to plaintiffs is almost wholly the result of her efforts. Literally, she gambled on the success or failure
of the litigation. She was a member of the Bar since 1940. Gauged by the familiar rule that an attorney shall be
entitled to have reasonable compensation for his services, with a view to the importance of the subject matter of
the controversy, the extent of the services rendered, and the professional standing of the attorney, . . ., we feel,
as did the trial court, that appellee is entitled to one-third of all the lands and damages recoverable by plaintiffs
under the judgment of the Court below."
The findings of the Solicitor General on the question of the genuineness and due execution to pay Coloma her
attorney's fees "had already been litigated by the parties in the course of the proceedings for the recording and
enforcement of the attorney's lien of respondent in Civil Case No. 4147 of the Court of First Instance of Ilocos
Norte; that the plaintiffs in said case (one of whom is the complainant, Albano, in this case) denied the
genuineness and due execution of said agreement Exh. 'A'; that they had full opportunity to present evidence in
support of their said contention; that after hearing, the trial court found said document to be genuine (pp. 43-48,
rec.); and that on appeal to the Court of Appeals, said court likewise found said document genuine . The
Solicitor General thus concluded that the finding of the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Norte and of the Court
of Appeals that the questioned document "is genuine, is now res judicata and bars complainant Angel Albano
(one of the plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 4147) from raising said question anew in these disbarment proceedings.
As repeatedly held, the fundamental principle of res judicata applies to all cases and proceedings in whatever
form they may be (Brillantes v. Castro, L-9223, June 30, 1956, 99 Phil. 497; 50 C.J.S. 31, 267), and a party can
not escape the bar of a judgment against him in a new suit on the same cause of action by varying the form of
his action or adopting a different method of presenting his case (Wensel v. Surigao Consolidated Mining, Inc.,
57 O.G. 6958; Vda. de Padilla v. Paterno, G.R. No. L-8748, Dec. 26, 1961; 50 C.J.S. 98)."
Wherefore, the charge against respondent Perpetua Coloma, member of the Philippine Bar, is hereby
dismissed.
SYLLABUS
1. REMEDIAL LAW; RES JUDICATA; DOCTRINE IS APPLICABLE TO ALL CASES AND

PROCEEDINGS. — The fundamental principle of res judicata applies to all cases and proceedings in
whatever form they may be, and a party cannot escape the bar of a judgment against him in a new suit on the
same cause of action by varying the form of his action or adopting a different method of presenting his case.
2. ATTORNEYS-AT-LAW; COMPENSATION FOR SERVICES; COUNSEL IS ENTITLED TO FULL

RECOMPENSE FOR HIS SERVICES. — Counsel, any counsel, if worthy of his hire, is entitled to be fully
recompensed for his services. With his capital consisting solely of his brains and with his skill, acquired at
tremendous cost not only in money but in the expenditure of time and energy, he is entitled to the protection of
any judicial tribunal against any attempt on the part of a client to escape payment of his fees. It is indeed ironic
if after putting forth the best that is in him to secure justice for the party he represents, he himself would not get
his due. Such an eventuality this Court is determined to avoid. It views with disapproval any and every effort of
those benefited by counsel’s services to deprive him of his hard-earned honorarium. Such an attitude deserves
condemnation.
3. REPUTATION OF LAWYER MUST BE PROTECTED. — Reputation in the legal profession is a

plant of tender growth, and its bloom, once lost, is not easily restored. This Court certainly is not averse to
having such a risk minimized. Where, as in this case, the good name of counsel was traduced by an accusation
made in reckless disregard of the truth, an action prompted by base ingratitude, the severest censure is called
for.
4. WHERE LAWYER IS NOT CULPABLE, CORRECTIVE POWER OF COURT MAY NOT BE

EXERCISED. — Where as in this case respondent has not been shown to be culpable, there is no occasion for
the corrective power of the Court coming into play.

ALBANO VS. COLOMA - A.C. No. 528 October 11, 1967

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ALBANO VS. COLOMA - A.C. No. 528 October 11, 1967

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

ALBANO VS. COLOMA - A.C. No. 528 October 11, 1967

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ALBANO VS.

The matter was referred to the Solicitor General for investigation.

Whether or not Perpetua Coloma is entitled to compensation of her services.

1. REMEDIAL LAW; RES JUDICATA; DOCTRINE IS APPLICABLE TO ALL CASES AND

2. ATTORNEYS-AT-LAW; COMPENSATION FOR SERVICES; COUNSEL IS ENTITLED TO FULL

3. REPUTATION OF LAWYER MUST BE PROTECTED. — Reputation in the legal profession is a

4. WHERE LAWYER IS NOT CULPABLE, CORRECTIVE POWER OF COURT MAY NOT BE

You might also like