Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Roxas vs. de Zuzuarregui Attorney's Fees
Roxas vs. de Zuzuarregui Attorney's Fees
De Zuzuarregui
Attorney’s Fees
FACTS:
The National Housing Authority (NHA) filed expropriation proceedings against the Zuzuarreguis
for parcels of land (179 hectares) belonging to the latter situation in Antipolo, Rizal. The Zuzuareguis
engaged the legal services of Attys. Roxas and Pastor. A partial Decision was rendered fixing the just
compensation to be paid to the Zuzuarreguis at P30 per sq. meter. The NHA moved for reconsideration of
the previous judgment and a new one be made, to lower the amount of just compensation. The
Zuzuarreguis and their attorneys executed a letter-agreement stating that they will accept a total of P17
per sq. meter for their land (P30,400,000 for 179 hectares) and in excess of that, would be used as
payment for the legal services of Attys. Roxas and Pastor. The NHA issued a resolution stating that the
aforementioned property would be acquired at P19.50 per sq. meter. The NHA, through Atty. Pedrosa,
released to Atty. Roxas, in behalf of the Zuzuarreguis, P20,000,000 in bonds as partial payment for the
land, and later, Atty. Roxas delivered only P15,000,000 to the Zuzuarreguis. The second payment was
again given to Atty. Roxas amounting to P34,500,000. The total amount released to Atty. Roxas was
54,500,000 and the amount given by the Atty, Roxas to the Zuzuarreguis was only P30,520,000.
AtP19.50 per sq. meter, the 179 hectare land was expropriated for P34,916,122. The total amount
relseased by the NHA was P54,500,000. The difference of 19,583,878 is the yield in bonds. The
Zuzuarreguis demanded that the yield on the NHA bonds be turned over to them. The RTC ruled in
favour of the defendants (the Attys.), which was later reversed and set aside by the CA stating that
P4,476,426.275 (P2.50 per sq. meter) was commensurate to the services rendered by the defendant-
appellees (the Attys.). Hence this petition.
ISSUE:
Whether the letter-agreement between the Zuzuarreguis and their Attys., fixing the exact amount that
must got to the former, should stand as law between the parties.
RULING:
YES. The decision of the CA is AFFIRMED but with MODIFICATION that Attys. Roxas and Pastor
return to the Zuzuarregis the amount of P17,073,224.84.
RATIONALE:
In relation to the case at bar, the contract between the Zuzuarreguis and their Attys. Possessed the
3 requisites in giving rise to a binding contract (Art. 1318 of the Civil Code). There was consent, an
object certain subject matter, and an established cause of obligation. There was no evidence to show that
anybody was forced into entering the letter-agreement. It is basic that a contract is the law between
parties, unless the stipulations found within it are contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or
public policy, which are all not found within the letter-agreement. Contingent fees are not prohibited by
law. However, contingent fees while sanctioned by law, should be reasonable under all the circumstances
of the case, and should always be under the supervision of a court, as to its reasonableness. Attorney’s
fees are unconscionable if they affront one’s sense of justice, decency or reasonableness. Attys. Roxas
and Pastor received 44% of the just compensation paid by the NHA to the Zuzuarreguis. In the case at
bar, there was never really a full blown hearing in the expropriation case, as it ended in a Compromise
Agreement. The 44% received by the Attys. Is unconscionable and excessive under the circumstances and
its reduction is in order.