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