Professional Documents
Culture Documents
18 - Riguer vs. Atty. Mateo, G.R. No. 22258, June 21, 2017
18 - Riguer vs. Atty. Mateo, G.R. No. 22258, June 21, 2017
SECOND DIVISION
DECISION
MENDOZA, J.:
This petition for review on certiorari seeks to reverse and set aside the April 13, 2015
Decision[1] and the September 3, 2015[2] and January 14, 2016[3] Resolutions of the
Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 136297, which upheld the June 2, 2014
Decision[4] of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 28, Cabanatuan City (RTC). The RTC
affirmed the July 26, 2013 Decision[5] of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Cabanatuan
City (MTCC), in a case involving attorney's fees.
The Antecedents
On January 16, 2007, the RTC rendered a judgment favorable to Riguer in the civil
case. During the pendency of the appeal, Atty. Mateo was able to make him sign a
document entitled "Kasunduan."[7] The said document stated that Riguer agreed to pay
Atty. Mateo the following: a) P30,000.00 as reimbursement for the latter's expenses in
the civil case; b) P50,000.00 in case of a favorable decision in the civil case; and c)
P250,000.00 once the land covered by TCT No. 12112 was sold.[8]
On May 21, 2009, the appeal was decided in favor of Riguer, prompting Atty. Mateo to
demand payment of the fees agreed upon in the Kasunduan. Riguer refused to pay.
After two (2) years or on May 30, 2011, Atty. Mateo filed a Complaint for Collection of
Attorney's Fees with Urgent Prayer for Issuance of Preliminary Attachment before the
MTCC.
In its July 26, 2013 decision, the MTCC ruled in favor of Atty. Mateo and ordered Riguer
to pay him P250,000.00 with six percent (6%) interest as attorney's fees and
elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/63120 1/10
9/24/2019 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
P5,494.50 as costs of suit. It opined that the Kasunduan bound Riguer as he never
denied signing the same. The MTCC disregarded his claim that he was unaware that he
had signed the said document as it was lumped with other documents to be signed for
the appeal. It found that at the time the Kasanduan was executed, no appeal had yet
been made as the trial court had not yet rendered a decision in the civil case. In
addition, it imposed legal interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum pursuant
to Article 2209 of the Civil Code. The MTCC disposed the case in this wise:
1. Ordering the defendant Eduardo Riguer to pay the plaintiff the amount of
TWO HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (Php250,000.00) with 6% legal
interest commencing from the date of judicial demand or the filing of this
case on May 30, 2011, until the finality of this Decision. The total amount
due inclusive of interest shall further earn 6% interest until the whole
obligation has been paid; and
2. Ordering the defendant Eduardo Riguer to pay the plaintiff the cost of this
suit in the amount of FIVE THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED NINETY-FOUR
PESOS AND FIFTY CENTAVOS (Php5,494.50).
SO ORDERED.[9]
In its June 2, 2014 Decision, the RTC concurred with the MTCC. It held that the
Kasunduan bound Riguer and that the latter's claim that the said document was
inserted in the voluminous documents he signed for the appeal was mere speculation.
Further, the RTC ruled that the attorney's fees in the amount of P250,000.00 were just
and equitable on the basis of quantum meruit. Likewise, it held that Atty. Mateo could
rightfully recover the costs of suit as he was constrained to litigate to enforce his claim
for attorney's fees. The RTC decreed:
SO ORDERED.[10]
The CA Ruling
In its April 13, 2015 Decision, the CA sustained the RTC decision. The appellate court
elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/63120 2/10
9/24/2019 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
disagreed that Atty. Mateo merely inserted the Kasunduan in the voluminous
documents of the appealed civil case as the document was signed a month before the
trial court had rendered its decision. Hence, there was no appeal to speak of yet.
Further, the CA added that even if the Kasunduan was void, Atty. Mateo was still
entitled to attorney's fees on the basis of quantum meruit. It noted that Riguer's claim
that the P250,000.00 was grossly disproportionate to the selling price of the land in the
amount of P600,000.00 was only presented for the first time on appeal. Thus, the CA
ruled:
ACCORDINGLY, this petition is DENIED and the Decision dated June 2, 2014,
AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.[11]
Riguer moved for reconsideration, but his motion was denied by the CA in its
September 3, 2015 Resolution for being filed out of time. He filed another motion for
reconsideration, but it was again denied by the CA in its January 14, 2016 Resolution as
a second motion for reconsideration was prohibited pursuant to Section 2, Rule 52 of
the Rules of Court.
ISSUES
II
Riguer insists that the CA erred in ruling that the first motion for reconsideration was
filed out of time. He faults the CA in reckoning the 15-day period to file a motion for
reconsideration from May 15, 2015, or the date his former counsel allegedly received
the notice of the April 13, 2015 decision. Riguer explained that the notice was received
by a certain Marisol Macaldo (Macaldo). He asserts that Macaldo never worked for the
law firm which previously represented him because she was a former helper of the
father of one of the lawyers in the said law firm. Thus, Riguer concludes that the
service of the notice was defective as it was never served at the office of his counsel
but at the latter's family home. Likewise, he dismisses the CA's ruling that his motion
for reconsideration of the September 3, 2015 resolution was a second motion for
reconsideration because it raised a different issue.
Further, Riguer stresses that he was misled in signing the Kasunduan as it was included
in the voluminous documents for appeal. He asserts that Atty. Mateo took advantage of
his lack of education and advanced age in making him sign it. Riguer points out that he
elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/63120 3/10
9/24/2019 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
paid the P30,000.00 and P50,000.00 embodied in the Kasunduan as Atty. Mateo
verbally required him to do so. He insists that the said document belied the true intent
of the parties and that the P250,000.00 attorney's fees was unreasonable.
In his Comment,[12] dated July 29, 2016, Atty. Mateo countered that the CA correctly
denied Riguer's first motion for reconsideration because the explanation of his counsel
was unjustified. He claimed that the certification of the Postmaster proved that the
decision was properly served on Riguer's counsel at the address indicated in the
records.
Moreover, Atty. Mateo asserted that even if technicalities were to be brushed aside, the
petition still failed to impress because the same raised questions of fact, which were
beyond the ambit of a petition for review under Rule 45. Likewise, he stated that the
courts a quo were right in awarding the attorney's fees because they were in
accordance with the written contract assented to by Riguer. Atty. Mateo claimed that
the P250,000.00 attorney's fees was appropriate, considering that Riguer's property
was valued at around P3 million at the time the contract was executed. He pointed out
that Riguer could not rely on the deed of sale as basis to reduce the award because the
same was fictitious, elaborating that it was common not to indicate the accurate price
of the property sold to lessen the tax to be levied from the sale.
In his Reply,[13] dated November 14, 2016, Riguer reiterated that it had been
sufficiently established that the person who received the CA decision was never
authorized by his counsel to do so. He asserted that Atty. Mateo's claim that the
property was valued at P3 million was unsubstantiated. Riguer persisted that the price
indicated in the notarized deed of sale was controlling as it was a public document.
Under Section 9, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court, service of judgments, final orders or
resolutions may be served either personally or by registered mail. In relation thereto,
service by registered mail shall be made by depositing the copy in the post office in a
sealed envelope addressed to the party or his counsel at his office, if known, otherwise
at his residence, if known.[14]
The CA was correct in reckoning the 15-day period to file a motion for reconsideration
from May 15, 2015, when Macaldo received a copy of the decision, and not May 18,
2015, when Riguer's former counsel was allegedly informed by his mother about the
decision. Thus, the motion for reconsideration was filed out of time as it was done only
on June 2, 2015. As pointed out by the CA, the Philippine Postal Corporation certified
that a copy of the April 13, 2015 decision was received by Riguer's counsel through
Macaldo.
The procedural lapses, notwithstanding, the Court may still entertain the present
elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/63120 4/10
9/24/2019 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
appeal. Procedural rules may be disregarded by the Court to serve the ends of
substantial justice. Thus, in CMTC International Marketing Corporation v. Bhagis
International Trading Corporation,[15] the Court elucidated:
Time and again, this Court has emphasized that procedural rules should be
treated with utmost respect and due regard, since they are designed to
facilitate the adjudication of cases to remedy the worsening problem of
delay in the resolution of rival claims and in the administration of justice.
From time to time, however, we have recognized exceptions to the Rules,
but only for the most compelling reasons where stubborn obedience to the
Rules would defeat rather than serve the ends of justice.
xxxx
The merits of Riguer's petition for review warrant a relaxation of the rules of procedure
if only to attain justice swiftly. As would be further discussed, a denial of his petition
would only allow Atty. Mateo to collect unconscionable attorney's fees.
Fraud must be clearly and convincingly proved before a contract may be nullified
The Court agrees that Riguer failed to establish that he was deceived and misled by
Atty. Mateo in signing the Kasunduan. Though Atty. Mateo judicially admitted that he
prepared the said document during the pendency of the appeal,[17] it was insufficient
to prove that he employed fraud and deceit in making Riguer sign the said document
together with other documents for the appeal.
In nullifying contracts on the basis of fraud, the same must be established by clear and
convincing evidence. The Court, in Tankeh v. DBP,[18] wrote:
elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/63120 5/10
9/24/2019 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
Other than Riguer's allegation of fraud, no clear and convincing evidence was presented
to support a conclusion that Atty. Mateo employed it in preparing, and eventually
having Riguer sign, the Kasunduan. Absent sufficient proof of fraud, the contract binds
the parties and is the law between them.
The Court, nevertheless, reduces the agreed attorney's fees for being unconscionable.
Section 24, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court provides:
Accordingly, whether there is an agreement or not, the courts can fix a reasonable
compensation which lawyers may receive for their professional services.[20] As an
officer of the court, the lawyer submits himself to the authority of the court and, as
such, the power to determine the reasonableness or unconscionable character of
attorney's fees stipulated by the parties is a matter falling within the regulatory
prerogative of the courts.[21]
In Rayos v. Atty. Hernandez,[22] the Court wrote that the stipulated attorney's fees
could be reduced if the same were unconscionable based on established standards, to
wit:
Generally, the amount of attorney's fees due is that stipulated in the retainer
agreement which is conclusive as to the amount of the lawyer's
elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/63120 6/10
9/24/2019 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
Applying the aforementioned standards, no other conclusion can be reached other than
that the P250,000.00 attorney's fees was unconscionable. First, the attorney's fees
amounted to almost 50% of the value of the property litigated as it was only sold for
P600,000.00. Second, Riguer was a farmer of advanced age with limited educational
attainment. Third, the stipulated attorney's fees in the Kasunduan referred to Atty.
Mateo's services for the appeal because the legal fees during the proceedings in the
trial court had already been paid. Lastly, Atty. Mateo judicially admitted that he
believed he was entitled to 10% attorney's fees. It was stated in the Kasunduan that
Atty. Mateo was to be paid P250,000.00 because he claimed that the litigated property
had a fair market value of around P3 million. The same, however, was sold for only
P600,000.00.
To convince the Court that the P250,000.00 attorney's fees was conscionable, Atty.
Mateo pointed out that the the deed of sale did not accurately reflect the value of the
land sold because its consideration was only for P600,000.00. He insisted that the true
value of the property was around P3 million.
The deed of sale in question was notarized. The act of notarizing made the instrument
a public document carrying with it legal ramifications. In Dela Peña v. Avila,[24] the
Court explained that a notarized document is proof of the contents stated therein and
may be set aside only by clear and strong evidence to the contrary, to wit:
With the material contradictions in the Dela Peria's evidence, the CA cannot
be faulted for upholding the validity of the impugned 4 November 1997
Deed of Absolute Sale. Having been duly notarized, said deed is a public
document which carries the evidentiary weight conferred upon it with
respect to its due execution. Regarded as evidence of the facts therein
expressed in a clear, unequivocal manner, public documents enjoy a
elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/63120 7/10
9/24/2019 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
In the case at bench, other than his bare assertions, Atty. Mateo never presented proof
to support his claim that the consideration indicated in the deed of sale was spurious.
Absent any proof to the contrary, the contents of the notarized deed of sale should be
held valid and true. Further, Riguer pointed out that the property was located in a
remote location, which made it less valuable compared to properties located in the
center of the city.
Lest it be misunderstood, the Court does not wish to deprive Atty. Mateo of his just
compensation for the satisfactory legal service he had rendered to his client. Though
his right to his lawyer's fees is recognized, the same must not amount to a deprivation
of property of his client. As Riguer's property was sold for only P600,000.00, and not
P3million, the agreed attorney's fees of P250,000.00 must be reduced accordingly.
WHEREFORE, the April 13, 2015 Decision and the September 3, 2015 and January 14,
2016 Resolutions of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 136297 are
AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. The attorney's fees in the amount of P250,000.00
awarded to respondent Atty. Edralin S. Mateo is reduced to P100,000.00.
SO ORDERED.
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier, with Associate Justice Celia C.
Librea-Leagogo and Associate Justice Melchor Q.C. Sadang, concurring; rollo, pp. 32-
43.
elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/63120 8/10
9/24/2019 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
[7] Id.
[20] Rilloraza, Africa, de Ocampo and Africa v. Eastern Telecommunications Phils., Inc.,
[21] Radio-wealth Finance Co., Inc., et al., v. International Corporate Bank, 261 Phil.
elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/63120 9/10
9/24/2019 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/63120 10/10