Cortes V CA

ELNORA R. CORTES V. C.A. & F. S. MGT AND DEV’T CORP. [G.R. No. 121772.
January 13, 2003]
FACTS: The controversy stemmed from a civil case for specific performance with damages filed by F.S.
Management and Development Corporation (FSMDC) against spouses Edmundo and Elnora Cortes
involving the sale of the parcel of land owned by the said spouses. Spouses Cortes retained the
professional services of Atty. Felix Moya. However, they did not agree on the amount of compensation
for the services to be rendered by Atty. Moya.
Before a full-blown trial could be had, defendants spouses Cortes and plaintiff FSMDC decided to enter
into a compromise agreement. Defendants spouses received from plaintiff FSMDC, three checks totaling
P2.7M. Thereafter, Atty. Moya filed an “Urgent Motion to Fix Attorney’s Fees, Etc.” praying that he be
paid a sum equivalent to 35% of the amount received by the defendants spouses which the latter
opposed contending that the amount Atty. Moya seeks to recover is utterly excessive and is not
commensurate to the nature, extent and quality of the services he had rendered.
Later, the Cortes spouses and Atty. Moya settled their differences by agreeing in open court that the
former will pay the latter the amount of P100k as his attorney’s fees. About six months after the
compromise, Atty. Moya filed an Ex-Parte Manifestation praying that his Motion to Fix Attorney’s Fees
be resolved on the basis of the agreement of the parties “in chambers”.
The Cortes spouses filed their Comment claiming: (1) That they agreed to the settlement of P100,000k
attorney’s fees expecting that the checks paid by FSMDC will be good but it turned out that they were all
dishonored, and no compromise agreement was pushed through; (2) That defendants are willing to pay
Atty. Moya as additional compensation for his services only in the amount of P50k subject to the
condition that same shall be paid after the case is terminated in their favor and/or the property involved
is sold; and (3) That defendants shall compensate Atty. Moya said amount in addition to what they have
paid before.” The trial court issued an Order directing the spouses to pay Atty. Moya the sum of
P100,000.00 as and by way of attorney’s fees.
ISSUE: WON THE P100K AWARD ATTORNEY’S FEES WAS PROPER?
HELD: NO. The reasonableness of the amount of attorney’s fees awarded to private respondent should
be properly gauged on the basis of the long-standing rule of quantum meruit, meaning, “as much as he
deserves”. Where a lawyer is employed without agreement as to the amount to be paid for his services,
the courts shall fix the amount on quantum meruit basis. In such a case, he would be entitled to receive
what he merits for his services. In this respect, Section 24, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court provides:
“Sec. 24. Compensation of attorneys, agreement as to fees. – An attorney shall be entitled to have and
recover from his client no more than a 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. x x x”
In addition, the following circumstances, codified in Rule 20.1, Canon 20 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, serves as a guideline in fixing a reasonable compensation for services rendered by a
lawyer on the basis of quantum meruit:
a) The time spent and the extent of the services rendered or required;
b) The novelty and difficulty of the questions involved;
c) The importance of the subject matter;
d) The skill demanded;
e) The probability of losing other employment as a result of acceptance of the proffered case;
f) The customary charges for similar services and the schedule of fees of the IBP chapter to which he
belongs;
g) The amount involved in the controversy and the benefits resulting to the client from the services;
h) The contingency or certainty of compensation;
i) The character of the employment, whether occasional or established; and
j) The professional standing of the lawyer.
In the present case, aside from invoking his professional standing, private respondent claims that he was
the one responsible in forging the initial compromise agreement wherein FSMDC agreed to pay P2.7M.
The fact remains, however, that such agreement was not consummated because the checks given by
FSMDC were all dishonored. It was not the private respondent who was responsible in bringing into
fruition the subsequent compromise agreement between petitioners and FSMDC.
Nonetheless, it is undisputed that private respondent has rendered services as counsel for the
petitioners. He prepared petitioners’ Answer and Pre- Trial Brief, appeared at the Pre-Trial Conference,
attended a hearing held on July 13, 1990, cross-examined the witness of FSMDC, and was present in the
conference at the Manila Hotel between the parties and their respective counsels. All these services
were rendered in the years 1990 and 1991 where the value of a peso is higher. Thus, we find the sum of
P100,000.00 awarded to private respondent as his attorney’s fees to be disproportionate to the services
rendered by him to petitioners. The amount of P50,000.00 as compensation for the services rendered by
Atty. Moya is just and reasonable.
Besides, the imposition of legal interest on the amount payable to private respondent is unwarranted.
Article 2209 of the Civil Code invoked by Atty. Moya and cited by the appellate court, finds no
application in the present case. It is a provision of law governing ordinary obligations and contracts.
Contracts for attorney’s services in this jurisdiction stand upon an entirely different footing from
contracts for the payment of compensation for any other services.
We have held that lawyering is not a moneymaking venture and lawyers are not merchants. Thus, a
lawyer’s compensation for professional services rendered are subject to the supervision of the court,
not just to guarantee that the fees he charges and receives remain reasonable and commensurate with
the services rendered, but also to maintain the dignity and integrity of the legal profession to which he
belongs.

Cortes V CA

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

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

Cortes V CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ELNORA R. CORTES V. C.A. & F. S. MGT AND DEV’T CORP. [G.R. No. 121772.

January 13, 2003]

ISSUE: WON THE P100K AWARD ATTORNEY’S FEES WAS PROPER?

b) The novelty and difficulty of the questions involved;

c) The importance of the subject matter;

d) The skill demanded;

h) The contingency or certainty of compensation;

i) The character of the employment, whether occasional or established; and

j) The professional standing of the lawyer.

You might also like