Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 5

1. Cosmos Foundry Union v.

Lo Bu (Defending Client’s Cause with Zeal)


 Despite the finality of the decision of the SC, petition was made that Lo Bu filed an
urgent motion to recall the writ of execution alleging lack of jurisdiction to pass upon
the validity of the sale
 followed by another motion praying for the return of the levied properties this time
asserting that petitioner labor union failed to put up an indemnity bond
 and then a third, this time to allow the sheriff to keep the levied properties at his
factory, all of which were denied by the Court. Counsel Busmente had the temerity to
deny such allegations.
 The conduct of Atty. Busmente is far from commendable. He was expected to defend
his client's cause with zeal, but not at the disregard of the truth and in defiance of the
clear purpose of labor statutes.
 CANON 17 – A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and shall be mindful of
the trust and confidence reposed on him.

Atty. Busmente is admonished

2. Choa v. Chiongson (Application of ISLAW)


 A complaint was filed against Alfonso Choa for making untruthful statements or
falsehoods in his Petition for Naturalization
 respondent Judge found the complainant guilty of the crime of perjury and sentenced
him to suffer the penalty of six months and one day of prision correccional and to pay
the costs
 Complainant filed an instant petition against respondent Judge and prayed for the
latter’s removal alleging that he was sentenced to suffer a penalty higher than that
provided by law without applying ISLAW
 Section 2 of R.A. No. 4103 (Indeterminate Sentence Law) substantially provides that
the Act shall not apply to those penalties whose maximum term of imprisonment
does not exceed one year.

Respondent Judge was correct in applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law

3. Mobil Oil Phil v. CFI of Rizal (Stipulation of Facts)


 Petitioner filed a complaint in the CFI of Rizal against private respondents for
collection of a sum of money arising from gasoline purchased on credit but not paid,
for damages and attorney’s fees
 Respondent court issued its disputed Order declaring previous decision null and void
insofar as private respondents were concerned on the ground that there was no
evidence to show that the counsel for the defendants had been duly authorized by
their respective clients to enter into a stipulation or facts
 The counsels of the parties in this case had the implied authority to do all acts
necessary or incidental to the prosecution and management of the suit in behalf of
their clients who were all present and never objected to the disputed order of the
respondent court.
 Thus, when the case was submitted for decision on the evidence so far presented,
the counsel for private respondents acted within the scope of his authority as agent
and lawyer in negotiating for favorable terms for his clients.
4. Sesbreno v. CA (Attorney’s Fees)
 The employees and Atty. Sesbreno agreed that he is to be paid 30% as attorney’s
fees and 20% as expenses taken from their back salaries
 Trial court decided in favor of the employees and were reinstated by the Province of
Cebu. A compromise agreement was then entered into by the parties.
 The Province of Cebu released P2,300,000.00 to the petitioning employees through
Atty. Sesbreno as “Partial Satisfaction of Judgment.”
 The trial court fixed the attorney’s fees a total of 60% of all monies paid to the
employees. However, trial court modified the award after noting that petitioner’s
attorney’s lien was inadvertently placed as 60% when it should have been only 50%.
 The Court of Appeals had the authority to reduce the amount of attorney’s fees
awarded to petitioner Atty. Raul H. Sesbreño
 Fifty per cent of all monies which private respondents may receive from the
provincial government, according to the Court of Appeals, is excessive and
unconscionable, not to say, contrary to the contract of professional services.
 CANON 16 – The Code mandates every lawyer to hold in trust all moneys and
properties of his client that may come into his possession.

Atty. Sesbreno’s Attorney’s fees were reduced notwithstanding the contract signed with the
employees

5. Research and Services Realty v. CA (Attorney’s Fees/Quantum Meruit)


 The petitioner entered into a Joint Venture Agreement with the Carreons, which then
instituted before the RTC a rescission of the Joint Venture Agreement
 the petitioner engaged the services of private respondent Atty. Manuel S. Fonacier,
Jr
 While the said case was pending, the petitioner, without the knowledge of the private
respondent, entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with another land
developer, Filstream
 In 1993, the petitioner terminated the legal services of Atty. Fonacier. Upon knowing
the existence of the MOA, the private respondent filed in Civil Case No. 612 an
Urgent Motion to Direct Payment of Attorney’s Fees
 After hearing the motion, the trial court issued an order directing the petitioner to pay
the private respondent the sum of P600,000.00 as attorney’s fees on the basis of
quantum meruit
 However, the court cannot sustain the private respondent’s theory that he could
collect attorney’s fees on contingent basis because in the other “non-collection”
cases he handled for the petitioner
 The amount in the memorandum of agreement could not be made the basis of a
“contingent fee” in the said case.
 CANON 16 – A lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and properties of his client that
may come into his possession.

Atty. Fonacier is not entitled to Attorney’s Fees

6. Bach v. Ongkiko Kalaw Manhit & Acorda Law Offices (Attorney’s Fees)
 petitioner Guenter Bach engaged the services of respondent law firm to represent
him in a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage
 Respondent withdrew its appearance as counsel of petitioner, due to policy
differences. Respondent then sent the termination billing for the services they
rendered and billed petitioner the total amount of P1,000,000.00 plus 2% interest for
every month of delay in payment
 Respondent filed with the RTC a Notice of Charging Lien over the properties of the
spouses Bach
 the RTC issued an Order directing the annotation of the charging lien in the amount
of P1,000,000.00 on all the titles of the spouses Bach’s personal and real property
 Nothing in Civil Case No. 95-224 so far appears complicated and no extra ordinary
skill was needed for lawyers of respondent Law Firm to accomplish what they had
done before they withdrew their appearance
 The Court does not find herein a situation so intricate that demands more than a
careful scrutiny of the legal matters involved

The attorney's fees awarded to respondent is REDUCED to P500,000.00, the legal interest of
2% on the amount due to respondent is DELETED

7. Bautista v. Gonzales 1990 (Malpractice, Unjust Enrichment)


 Bautista charges Gonzales with malpractice, deceit, gross misconduct and violation
of lawyer’s oath.
 Bautista alleged that Gonzales committed acts of treachery and disloyalty to his
client, deliberately misled the Court by making false statements, harassed the
complainant by filing several complaints without any legal basis, submitted false
documents purporting to be copies of an Addendum, transferred ½ of the properties
of the Fortunados (his clients), which properties were the subject of a pending case,
among others.
 Respondent prepared a Transfer of Rights signed by the Fortunados. It assigned ½
of the properties for and in consideration of the respondent’s legal services.
 Purchase by a lawyer of his client’s property or interest in litigation is a breach of
professional ethics and constitutes malpractice.
 Champertous agreements are against public policy especially where the lawyer
agrees to carry out the action at his own expense in consideration of some bargain to
have part of the thing in dispute.
 CANON 16 – A lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and properties of his client that
may come into his possession.

Atty. Gonzales is suspended from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months

8. Doy Mercantile, Inc. v. AMA Computer College 2004


 Dionisio O. Yap, a Director of Doy Mercantile, Inc., sold two (2) lands of Doy
Mercantile, Inc. (DMI) to AMA Computer College without proper authorization from
the other members of the Board
 During pre-trial, AMA proposed to enter into a compromise agreement with DMI,
which proposal the parties later agreed to adopt
 DMI, however, refused to satisfy Atty. Eduardo P. Gabriel, Jr. (counsel)’s attorney’s
fees, prompting the lawyer to file with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) a Motion to
Allow Commensurate Fees
 At this point, DMI had already obtained the services of a new counsel
 RTC fixed the attorney’s fees at P200,000, but upon Atty. Gabriel’s motion for
reconsideration, the RTC increased the fees to P500,000.
 DMI filed several petitions with the Court of Appeals (CA) to set aside the RTC
Orders involving the award of attorney’s fees.
 The petition has no merit. Section 24, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court – An attorney
shall be entitled to have and recover from his client no more than a reasonable
compensation for his services
 CANON 20 – A lawyer shall charge only reasonable fees

Atty. Gabriel’s Attorney’s fees is reduced to P200,000