Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
honorable, fair and honest which is resorted to by the lawyer, even in the
pursuit
of his devotion to his clients cause, is condemnable and unethical.
WHEREFORE, court finds respondent Atty. James Benedict Florido GUILTY
of violating Canon 19 and Rules 1.02 and 15.07 of the Code of
ProfessionalResponsibility. Accordingly, he is SUSPENDED from the practice of
law for one yeareffective upon finality of the Decision.
CASE 141: FERNANDO MARTIN O. PEA v. ATTY. LOLITO APARICIO
(2007)
FACTS: Atty. Aparicio was hired as counsel by an employee who has been
complaining at the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) for alleged
illegal dismissal. The NLRC arranged for a mandatory mediation/conciliation
conference to be attended by both parties. Atty. Aparicio, in behalf of his
client, filed a claim for separation pay and damages, during the conference,
but the company (represented by the complainant, Pea) rejected these as
baseless. The company thru Mr. Pea sent a letter to the employee and Atty.
Aparicio, requiring an explanation as to her absences, and to return to work.
However, Atty. Aparicio, representing his client, made a response reiterating
their arguments re: illegal dismissal. The letter also contained the following
threats to the company: But if these are not paid on August 10, 2005, we
will be constrained to file and claim bigger amounts including moral
damages to the tune of millions under established precedence of cases and
laws. In addition to other multiple charges like (1) Tax evasion by the millions
of pesos of income not reported to the government, (2) Criminal Charges for
Tax Evasion, (3) Criminal Charges for Falsification of Documents, and (4)
Cancellation of business license to operate due to violations of laws. These
are reserved for future actions in case of failure to pay the above amounts as
settlements in the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC).
Mr. Pea then filed this complaint for disciplinary action with the IBP,
believing that the letter was unethical. Atty. Aparicio claimed that the
complaint is malicious; that it must be dismissed because of procedural
matters which were not complied with, e.g. certification against forum
shopping. Atty. Aparicio also claims that the issuance of demand letters had
been an accepted practice in the legal profession. There was amandatory
conference but Atty. Aparicio failed to appear. The investigating
commissioner recommended the dismissal of the case for failure to comply
with procedural matters. The IBP Board of Governors adopted the
dozens of papers and pleadings and went to trial with the assistance of her
sister.
ISSUE/S:WON Coloma can collect her attorneys fees
HELD:Yes. The Solicitor General found that the genuineness and due
execution to pay respondent her attorneys fees.
RATIO:Any counsel, who is worthy of his hire is entitled to be fully
recompensed for his services. With his capital consisting solely of his brains
and with his skill, acquired at tremendous cost not only in money but in
expenditure of time and energy, he is entitled to the protection of any
judicial tribunal against any attempt on the part of a client to escape
payment of his fees. It is indeed ironic if after putting forth the best that is in
him to secure justice for the party he represents, he himslef would not get
his due.
CASE 145: Traders Royal Bank Union-Independent v. NLRC, GR
120592, March 14, 1997 FACTS: In February 1987, petitioner Traders
Royal Bank Employees Union (Union) and private respondent Atty. Emmanuel
Cruz, head of the E.N.A Cruz and Associates law firm, entered into a retainer
agreement. The Union would pay Atty. Cruz a monthly retainer fee of P3000.
The Union referred to Atty. Cruz the claims of its members for holiday, midyear and year-end bonuses against their employer, Trader Royal Bank (TRB).
Atty. Cruz filed the complaint and the Labor Secretary to the NLRC certified
the case. In September 1988, the NLRC ruled in favor of the employees,
awarding them holiday pay differential, mid-year bonus differential and yearend bonus differential. Acting on the motion for the issuance of a writ of
execution Atty. Cruz filed, the NLRC raffled the case to Labor Arbiter Oswald
Lorenzo. However, pending the hearing of the application for the writ of
execution, TRB challenged the NLRC decision before the Supreme Court. The
Supreme Court modified the decision by deleting the award of mid-year and
year-end bonus differentials. TRB complied with the final judgment and
determined the holiday pay differential. The Union members were paid
through their payroll. In April 1990, the retainer agreement was terminated.
In September 1990, Atty. Cruz received the Supreme Court decision and
notified the Union. Through a latter, he informed the Union, the TRB
management and the NLRC of his right to exercise and enforce his attorneys
lien over the award of holiday pay differential. In July 1991, he filed a motion
before Labor Arbiter Lorenzo for the determination of his attorneys fees,
praying that 10% of the total reward for holiday pay differential be declared
as his attorneys fees. Lorenzo granted the motion. The NLRC affirmed the
grant. The Union filed a motion for reconsideration but the NLRC denied it.
Hence, this petition. The Union maintained that: (1) the NLRC committed
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in upholding the
award of attorneys fees in violation of the retainer agreement, (2) the award
for attorneys fees should have been incorporated in the main case and not
after the Supreme Court had already reviewed and passed upon the NLRC
decision. It argued that since the Supreme Court had neither taken up nor
approved Atty. Cruzs claim for attorneys fees, the NLRC should not have
allowed said attorneys fees. Thus, the Union posited that the NLRC acted
without jurisdiction in making the award of attorneys fees, as said act
constituted a modification of a final and executor Supreme Court judgment
which did not award attorneys fees.
On the other hand, Atty. Cruz maintained that his motion to determine
attorneys fees was just an incident of the main case where the Union was
awarded its money claims. The grant of attorney's fees was the consequence
of his exercise of his attorney's lien. Such lien resulted from and corresponds
to the services he rendered in the action wherein the favorable judgment
was obtained. To include the award of the attorney's fees in the main case
presupposes that the fees will be paid by TRB to the adverse party. All that
the non-inclusion of attorney's fees in the award means is that the Supreme
Court did not order TRB to pay the opposing party attorney's fees in the
concept of damages. He is not therefore precluded from filing his motion to
have his own professional fees adjudicated.
ISSUE/S: WON Atty. Cruz should be awarded attorneys fees.
HELD: Yes. Atty. Cruz should be awarded attorneys fees.
RATIO: Rule 20.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that
a lawyer shall avoid controversies with clients concerning his
compensation and shall resort to judicial action only to prevent imposition,
injustice or fraud. This Rule requires that a lawyer shall first and foremost
take care of his clients interest before he concerns himself with his personal
compensation. And in times when there are controversies about it, he has
the remedy of judicial action to claim the amount for the services he
rendered. In the case at bar, the controversy started when the Union refused
to pay Atty. Cruz attorneys fees for the latters render of service in the
litigation of a particular case because they were already paying him a
retainers fee. It is therefore imperative to distinguish an attorneys fee from
services as general counsel for any ordinary legal problem that may arise in
the routinary business of the client and referred to him for legal action. The
future services of the lawyer are secured and committed to the retaining
client. For this, the client pays the lawyer a fixed retainer fee which could be
monthly or otherwise, depending upon their arrangement. The fees are paid
whether or not there are cases referred to the lawyer. The reason for the
remuneration is that the lawyer is deprived of the opportunity of rendering
services for a fee to the opposing party or other parties. In fine, it is a
compensation for lost opportunities. A special retainer is a fee for a specific
case handled or special service rendered by the lawyer for a client. A client
may have several cases demanding special or individual attention. If for
every case there is a separate and independent contract for attorney's fees,
each fee is considered a special retainer. Evidently, the P3,000.00 monthly
fee provided in the retainer agreement between the union and the law firm
refers to a general retainer, or a retaining fee, as said monthly fee covers
only the law firm's pledge, or as expressly stated therein, its "commitment to
render the legal services enumerated." The fee is not payment for Atty.
Cruzs execution or performance of the services listed in the contract, subject
to some particular qualifications or permutations stated there. Also, he
asserted that there was no express agreement as to the amount of his fees
for services rendered in the case for recovery of differential pay. However, he
argued that in the absence of such agreement, Article 111 of the Labor Code
supplants this omission by providing for an award of ten percent (10%) of a
money judgment in a labor case as attorney's fees. It is elementary that an
attorney is entitled to have and receive a just and reasonable compensation
for services performed at the special instance and request of his client. As
long as the lawyer was in good faith and honestly trying to represent and
serve the interests of the client, he should have a reasonable compensation
for such services.