Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Dee Vs CA
Dee Vs CA
*
G.R. No. 77439. August 24, 1989.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001697107bf870a47bbf9003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/12
3/12/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 176
_______________
* SECOND DIVISION.
652
his family were further freed from the apprehension that Dewey
might be harmed or even killed by the so-called mafia. For such
services, respondent Mutuc is indubitably entitled to receive a
reasonable compensation and this right cannot be occluded by
petitioner’s pretension that at the time private respondent
rendered such services to petitioner and his family, the former
was also the Philippine consultant of Caesar’s Palace.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Circumstances showing that the
services of respondent Mutuc were engaged by the petitioner.—On
the first aspect, the evidence of record shows that the services of
respondent Mutuc were engaged by the petitioner for the
purposes hereinbefore discussed. The previous partial payments
totalling P50,000.00 made by petitioner to respondent Mutuc and
the tenor of the demand letters sent by said private respondent to
petitioner, the receipt thereof being acknowledged by petitioner,
ineluctably prove three facts, viz: that petitioner hired the
services of private respondent Mutuc; that there was a prior
agreement as to the amount of attorney’s fees to be given to the
latter; and there was still a balance due and payable on said fees.
Same; Same; Generally, an attorney is prohibited from
representing parties with contending position unless with their
consent.—Even assuming that the imputed conflict of interests
obtained, private respondent’s role therein was not ethically or
legally indefensible. Generally, an attorney is prohibited from
representing parties with contending positions. However, at a
certain stage of the controversy before it reaches the court, a
lawyer may represent conflicting interests with the consent of the
parties. A common representation may work to the advantage of
said parties since a mutual lawyer, with honest motivations and
impartially cognizant of the parties’ disparate positions, may well
be better situated to work out an acceptable settlement of their
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001697107bf870a47bbf9003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/12
3/12/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 176
653
REGALADO, J.:
_______________
1 Petition, 4; Rollo, 9.
2 Rollo, 9-10, 21-22.
654
_______________
3 Rollo, 10.
4 Civil Case No. 1736 (47992): Original Record, 1-4.
655
the former for his trips to Las Vegas and the said amount
of P50,000.00 was already sufficient remuneration for his
strictly voluntary services.
After trial, the court a quo rendered judgment ordering
herein petitioner to pay private respondent the sum of
P50,000.00 with interest thereon at the legal rate from the
filing of the complaint on October 4, 1982 and to pay the
costs. All other claims therein of private respondent
5
and
the counterclaim of petitioner were dismissed. On appeal,
said judgment was affirmed by 6
the then Intermediate
Appellate Court on May 9, 1986.
Petitioner, in due time, filed a motion for
reconsideration contending that the Appellate Court
overlooked two important and decisive factors, to wit: (1) At
the time private respondent was ostensibly rendering
services to petitioner and his father, he was actually
working “in the interest” and “to the advantage” of Caesar’s
Palace of which he was an agent and a consultant, hence
the interests of the casino and private respondent were
united in their objective to collect from the debtor; and (2)
Private respondent is not justified in claiming that he
rendered legal services to petitioner and his father in view
of the conflicting interests involved.
In its resolution of July 31, 1986, respondent court
reconsidered its decision and held that the sum of
P50,000.00 already paid by petitioner to private respondent
was commensurate to the services he rendered, considering
that at the time he was acting as counsel for petitioner he
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001697107bf870a47bbf9003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/12
3/12/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 176
_______________
656
8
1987, reinstating the aforesaid decision of May 9, 1986.
Petitioner is now before us seeking a writ of certiorari to
overturn the latter resolution.
It is necessary, however, to first clear the air of the
questions arising from the change of stand of the First Civil
Cases Division of the former Intermediate Appellate Court
when, acting on the representations in petitioner’s undated
motion for reconsideration supposedly filed on May 28,
1986, it promulgated its July 31, 1986 resolution
reconsidering the decision it had rendered in AC-G.R. CV
No. 04242. Said resolution was, as earlier noted, set aside
by the Twelfth Division of the reorganized Court of Appeals
which, at the same time, reinstated the aforesaid decision.
Because of its clarificatory relevance to some issues
belatedly raised by9
petitioner, which issues should have
been disregarded but were nevertheless auspiciously
discussed therein, at the risk of seeming prolixity we quote
hereunder the salient portions of the assailed resolution
which demonstrate that it was not conceived in error.
“The reason for then IAC’s action is that it deemed the P50,000.00
plaintiff-appellee had previously received from defendant-
appellant as adequate compensation for the services rendered by
him for defendant-appellant, considering that at the time
plaintiff-appellee was acting as counsel for defendant-appellant,
he was also acting as the collecting agent and consultant of, and
receiving compensation from Caesar’s Palace in Las Vegas,
Nevada, the entity with whom defendant-appellant was having a
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001697107bf870a47bbf9003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/12
3/12/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 176
_______________
657
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001697107bf870a47bbf9003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/12
3/12/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 176
658
Both the lower court and the appellate court concur in their
findings that there was a lawyer-client relationship
between petitioner and private respondent Mutuc. We find
no reason to interfere with this factual finding. There may
be instances when there is doubt as to whether an
attorney-client relationship has been created. The issue
may be raised in the trial court, but once the trial court and
the Court of Appeals have found that there was such a
relationship the11
Supreme Court cannot disturb such
finding of fact, absent cogent reasons therefor.
The puerile claim is advanced that there was no
attorney-client relationship between petitioner and private
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001697107bf870a47bbf9003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/12
3/12/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 176
_______________
10 Rollo, 52-55.
11 Vda. de Reyes vs. Court of Appeals et al., 116 SCRA 607 (1982).
12 See C.J.S., 848-849, and Hirach Bros. & Co. vs. R.E. Kennington Co.,
88 A.L.R., 1, as cited in Hilado vs. Gutierrez David, et al., 84 Phil. 569
(1949).
659
_______________
660
_______________
661
“It is a fair question to ask why, of all the lawyers in the land, it
was the private respondent who was singled out by the
petitioner’s father for consultation in regard to an apparent
problem, then pending in Caesar’s Palace. The testimony of
Arthur Alejandrino, cousin to private respondent, and the
admission of the private respondent himself supply the answer.
Alejandrino testified that private respondent was the
representative of Caesar’s Palace in the Philippines (p. 23, t.s.n.,
Nov. 29, 1983). Private respondent testified that he was such
representative tasked by the casino to collect the gambling losses 17
incurred by Filipinos in Las Vegas. (p. 5, t.s.n., Sept. 21, 1983).”
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001697107bf870a47bbf9003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/12
3/12/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 176
Resolution affirmed.
——o0o——
_______________
662
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001697107bf870a47bbf9003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 12/12