CANON 20

CASE NO. 1
MIRANDA V. ATTY. CARPIO / A.C. 6281 / September 21, 2011

FACTS
Miranda,one of the owners of a parcel of land, engaged the services of Atty. Carpio a scounsel
for the registration of the aforesaid property. They agreed that Miranda has to pay Atty. Carpio
TwentyThousand Pesos (PhP20,000.00) as acceptance fee and Two Thousand Pesos
(PhP2,000.00) as appearance fee, which was paid accordingly. During the last hearing of the
case, respondent demanded the additional amount of Ten Thousand Pesos(PhP10,000.00) for the
preparation of a memorandum,which he said would further strengthen complainant'sposition in
the case, plus twenty percent (20%) of the total area of the subject property as additional fees for
his services. Complainant did not accede to respondent's demand for it was contrary to their
agreement. Moreover, complainant co-owned the subject property with his siblings, and he could
not have agreed to the amount being demanded by respondent without the knowledge and
approval of his co-heirs. As a result of complainant's refusal to satisfy respondent's demands, the
latter became furious andtheir relationship became sore. Miranda was then surprised to know that
the duplicate of the Original Certificate of Title (OCT) had already been claimed by and released
to Atty. Carpio, which the latter used to safeguard thatcomplainant first pay him the
PhP10,000.00 and the 20%share in the property. Once again, Miranda refusedthe demand.
Miranda then learned that Atty. Carpio registered an adverse claim on the subject OCT wherein
he claimed that the agreement on the payment of his legal services was 20% of the property
and/or actual market value. To date, respondent has notreturned the owner's duplicate of OCT
tocomplainant and his co-heirs despite repeated demands to effect the same.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Carpio should be held liable for violating Canon20, Rule 20.01 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility.

RULING:
Yes. An attorney's retaining lien is fully recognized if the presence of the following elements
concur: (1) lawyer-client relationship; (2) lawful possession of the client's funds, documents and
papers; and (3) unsatisfied claim for attorney's fees. Further, the attorney's retaining lien is a
general lien for the balance of the account between the attorney and his client, and applies to the
documents and funds of the client which may come into the attorney's possession in the course
of his employment. As correctly found by the IBP-CBD, there was no proof of any agreement
between the complainant and the respondent that the latter is entitled to an additionalprofessional
fee consisting of 20% of the total areacovered by OCT . Clearly, there is no unsatisfied claim for
attorney's fees that would entitle respondent to retain his client's property. Respondent's
unjustified act of holding on to complainant's title with the obvious aim of forcing complainant
to agree to the amount of attorney's fees sought is an alarming abuse by respondent of the
exercise of an attorney's retaining lien, which by no means is an absolute right, and cannot at all
justify inordinate delay in the delivery of money and property to his client when due or upon
demand. Atty. Carpio failed to live up to his duties as a lawyer by unlawfully withholding and
failing to deliver the title of the complainant, despite repeated demands, in the guise of an alleged
entitlement to additional professional fees. In collecting from complainant exorbitant
fees,respondent violated Canon 20 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which mandates
that “a lawyer shall charge only fair and reasonable fees.” It is highly improper for a lawyer to
impose additional professional fees upon his client which were never mentioned nor agreed upon
at the time of the engagement of his services. The principle of quantum meruit applies if a lawyer
is employed without a price agreed upon for his services. In such a case, he would be entitled to
receive what he merits for his services, as much as he has earned. Respondent's further
submission that he is entitled to the payment of additional professional fees on the basis of the
principle of quantum meruit has no merit. "Quantum meruit, meaning `as much as he deserved' is
used as a basis for determining the lawyer's professional fees in the absence of a contract but
recoverable by him from his client." In the present case, the parties had already entered into an
agreement as to the attorney's fees of the respondent, and thus, the principle of quantum meruit
does not fully find application because the respondent is already compensated by such
agreement. Atty. Carpio was suspended  from the practice of law for a period of six (6)
months,and was ordered to RETURN  to the complainant the owner's duplicate of OCT
immediately upon receipt of this decision.
CASE NO. 2
THE LAW FIRM OF LAGUESMA MAGSALIN CONSULTA & GASTARDO V.
COMMISSION ON AUDIT, ET AL / G.R. No. 185544 / January 13, 2015

FACTS
Clark Development Corporation (CDC) , a government-owned and controlled corporation,
approached the law firm of Laguesma Magsalin Consulta and Gastardo for its possible assistance
in handling the corporation's labor cases. CDC sought from the OGCC its approval for the
engagement of [Laguesma Magsalin Consulta and Gastardo] as external counsel, which was
initially denied but eventually reconsidered and approved. CDC then requested the COA for the
concurrence of the retainership contract. OGCC denied CDC’s request on the ground that the
pro-forma retainership contract given to them was not based on the premise that the monthly
retainers fee and concomitant charges are reasonable and could pass in audit by COA. She found
that Clark Development Corporation adopted instead the law firm's proposals concerning the
payment of a retainer's fee on a per case basis without informing OGCC. She, however, ruled
that the law firm was entitled to payment under the principle of quantum meruit and subject to
Clark Development Corporation Board's approval and the usual government auditing rules and
regulations. Consequently, COA denied the request for clearance, citing its failure to secure a
prior written concurrence of the COA and the approval with finality of the OGCC. CDC and
Laguesma Magsalin Consulta and Gastardo separately filed motions for reconsideration, which
the Commission on Audit denied. The resolution also disallowed the payment of legal fees to the
law firm on the basis of quantum meruit since theCommission on Audit Circular No. 86-255
mandates that the engagement of privatecounsel without prior approval "shall be a personal
liability of the officials concerned."

ISSUE
Whether or not the COA erred in ruling that petitioner should not be paid on the basis of
quantum meruit and that any payment for its legal services should be the personal liability of
CDC’s officials.

RULING
No. When Government Corporate Counsel Devanadera denied Clark Development Corporation's request
for final approval of its legal services contracts, she, however, allowed the payment to petitioner for legal
services already rendered on a quantum meruit basis. Respondents disallowed Clark Development
Corporation from paying petitioner on this basis as the contract between them was executed "in clear
violation of the provisions of COA Circular No. 86-255 and OP Memorandum Circular No. 9[.]"It then
ruled that the retainership contract between them should be deemed a private contract for which the
offcials of CDC should be liable, citing Section 103 of Presidential Decree No. 1445, otherwise known
as the Government Auditing Code of the Philippines. Here, the Board of Directors, acting on behalf of
Clark Development Corporation, contracted the services of petitioner, without the necessary prior
approvals required by the rules and regulations for the hiring of private counsel. Their actions were
clearly unauthorized. It was, thus, erroneous for Government Corporate Counsel Devanadera to bind
Clark Development Corporation, a government entity, to pay petitioner on a quantum meruit basis for
legal services, which were neither approved nor authorized by the government. Even granting that
petitioner ought to be paid for services rendered, it should not be the government's liability, but that of the
officials who engaged the services of petitioner. The petition is dismissed.
without the required authorization.
CASE NO. 3
SESBREÑO V. CA / G.R. No. 117438 / June 8, 1995

FACTS
Fifty-two employees sued the Province of Cebu and then Governor Espina for reinstatement and
backwages, Sesbreño being their counsel. the trial court rendered a decision ordering the Province
of Cebu to reinstate the petitioning employees and pay them back salaries. A compromise agreement was
entered into by the parties Likewise, pursuant to said compromise agreement, the Province of Cebu
releasedP2,300,000.00 to the petitioning employees through petitioner as "Partial Satisfaction of
Judgment." The amount represented back salaries, terminal leave pay and gratuity pay due to the
employee.whereby the former employees waived their right to reinstatement among others. the trial court
fixed petitioner's attorney's fees at 40% of back salaries, terminal leave, gratuity pay and retirement
benefits and 20% as expenses, or a total of 60% of all monies paid to the employees. Obviously not
satisfied with the attorney's fees Fxed by the trial court, petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals
claiming additional fees for legal services before the Supreme Court, reimbursement for expenses and a
clear statement that the fee be likewise taken from retirement pay awarded to his clients. Unfortunately,
the respondent appellate court did not agree with him as the generous awards furtherreduced.

ISSUE
Whether or not the CA erred in its decision that yhe attorney's fees due Atty. Raul Sesbreño is Fxed at an
amount equivalent to 20% of all back salaries which the Province of Cebu has awarded to herein 10
petitioners."

RULING:
No. It is a settled rule that what a lawyer may charge and receive as attorney's fees is always subject to
judicial control. A lawyer is primarily an officer of the court charged with the duty of assisting the court
in administering impartial justice between the parties. When he takes his oath, he submits himself to the
authority of the court and subjects his professional fees to judicial control. In the case at bench, the parties
entered into a contingent fee contract. A stipulation on a lawyer's compensation in a written contract for
professional services ordinarily controls the amount of fees that the contracting lawyer may be allowed,
unless the court finds such stipulated amount unreasonable or unconscionable. Courts may always
ascertain, if the attorney's fees are found to be excessive, what is reasonable under the circumstances.
Quantum meruit, meaning "as much as he deserves," is used as the basis for determining the lawyer's
professional fees in the absence of a contract. Factors such as the time spent and extent of services
rendered; novelty and difficulty of the questions involved; importance of the subject matter; skill
demanded; probability of losing other employment as a result of acceptance of the proffered cause;
customary charges for similar services; amount involved in the controversy and the beneFts resulting to
the client; certainty of compensation; character of employment; and professional standing of the lawyer,
are considered in determining his fees.
CASE NO. 4
PINEDA V. DE JESUS / G.R. 155224 / AUGUST 23, 2006

FACTS
Aurora Pineda filed for a declaration of nullity of marriage against Vinson Pineda. Aurora proposed a
settlement regarding the visitation rights and separation of properties, which Vinson accepted. Settlement
was approved and their marriage was declared null and void. Throughoiyt the proceedings, the respondent
counsels were compensated but still billed petitioner additional legal fees amounting to P16.5M, which
Vinson rejected and only paid P1.2M. Respondents filed a complaint with the same trial court , which
ordered Vinson to pay a total of P9M. CA, however, reduced the amount to a total of P2M.

ISSUE:
Whether or not respondents were entitled for the additional legal fees

RULING
No. the professional engagement between petitioner and respondents was governed by the principle of
quantum meruit which means "as much as the lawyer deserves." The recovery of attorney's fees on this
basis is permitted, as in this case, where there is no express agreement for the payment of attorney's fees.
Basically, it is a legal mechanism which prevents an unscrupulous client from running away with the
fruits of the legal services of counsel without paying for it. In the same vein, it avoids unjust
enrichment on the part of the lawyer himself. Further, Rule 20.4 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility advises lawyers to avoid controversies with clients concerning their compensation and to
resort to judicial action only to prevent imposition, injustice or fraud. Suits to collect fees should be
avoided and should be filed only when circumstances force lawyers to resort to it. In the case at bar,
respondents' motion for payment of their lawyers' fees was not meant to collect what was justly due them;
the fact was, they had already been adequately paid. As lawyers, respondents should be reminded that
they are members of an honorable profession, the primary vision of which is justice. It is respondents'
despicable behavior which gives lawyering a bad name in the minds of some people. The vernacular has a
word for it: nagsasamantala. The practice of law is a decent profession and not a money-making
trade. Compensation should be but a mere incident. Respondents' claim for additional legal fees was not
justified. They could not charge petitioner a fee based on percentage, absent an express agreement to that
effect. The payments to them in cash, checks, free products and services from petitioner's business —
all of which were not denied by respondents — more than sufficed for the work they did. The "full
payment for settlement" should have discharged petitioner's obligation to them. The power of this Court
to reduce or even delete the award of attorneys' fees cannot be denied. Lawyers are officers of the Court
and they participate in the fundamental function of administering justice. When they took their oath, they
submitted themselves to the authority of the Court and subjected their professional fees to judicial control.
CASE NO. 5
CORAZON DALUPAN V. ATTY. GLENN C. GACOTT / A.C. 5067 / June 29, 2015

FACTS:
Corazon Dalupan was a defendant in a criminal case as well as her son, Wilmer Dalupan in a separate
criminal case. Both were represented by Atty. Glenn Gacott with a P10,000 acceptance fee. They paid
P5,000 as initial payment. Corazon requested Gacott to draft a Motion to Reduce Bail Bond which the
latter denied claiming that it was beyond the scope of his retainer services. Thus, Corazon caused Roily
Calbentos to draft the same which was signed by Gacott. Corazon paid the remaining balance and when
she asked for an OR, Gacott refused as there was no need for the issuance of a receipt. Corazon also paid
P500 for Gacott’s appearance fee in the preliminary conference and arraignment. Corazon alleged that
Gacott neglected his duties as counsel and failed to attend any of the hearings. Hence, Corazon filed a
complaint for disbarment against Gacott. All allegations were denied by Gacott. The IBP Investigating
Commissioner recommended the dismissal of the complaint. Although there was no evidence that
Corazon paid the balance of P5,000 as acceptance fee and an appearance fee of P500, the Investigating
Commissioner gave credence to an OR which proved that Corazon paid Gacott P5,000. However, the
Investigating Commissioner found that Gacott did not do any substantial legal work for Corazon. Hence,
he recommended to return the attorney’s fees.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Gacott should return the payment of the attorney’s fees to Corazon Dalupan.

RULING:
No. It is well-settled that attorney's fee is understood both in its ordinary and extraordinary concept. In its
ordinary sense, attorney's fee refers to the reasonable compensation paid to a lawyer by his client for legal
services rendered. Meanwhile, in its extraordinary concept, attorney's fee is awarded by the court to the
successful litigant to be paid by the losing party as indemnity for damages. In the present case, the
Investigating Commissioner referred to the attorney's fee in its ordinary concept. On the other hand,
acceptance fee refers to the charge imposed by the lawyer for merely accepting the case. This is because
once the lawyer agrees to represent a client, he is precluded from handling cases of the opposing party
based on the prohibition on conflict of interest. Thus, he incurs an opportunity cost by merely accepting
the case of the client which is therefore indemnified by the payment of acceptance fee. Since the
acceptance fee only seeks to compensate the lawyer for the lost opportunity, it is not measured by the
nature and extent of the legal services rendered. In this case, the parties clearly intended the payment of
P5,000 to serve as acceptance fee of the respondent, and not attorney's fee. Moreover, both parties
expressly claimed that they intended such payment as the acceptance fee of the respondent. Absent any
other evidence showing a contrary intention of the parties, the Court found that the Investigating
Commissioner gravely erred in referring to the amount to be returned by the respondent as attorney's fee.
Secondly, the respondent did not commit any fault or negligence which would entail the return of the
acceptance fee. Other than her bare allegations, the complainant failed to present any evidence to support
her claim that the respondent committed abandonment or neglect of duty. Thus, the Court is constrained
to affirm the factual findings of the Investigating Commissioner that the presumption of regularity should
prevail in favor of the respondent. Absent any fault or negligence on the part of the respondent, the Court
saw no legal basis for the order of the Investigating Commissioner to return the attorney's fee (acceptance
fee) of P5,000.
CASE NO. 6
FELICISIMA MENDOZA VDA. DE ROBOSA V. ATTYS. JUAN B. MENDOZA AND EUSEBIO
P. NAVARRO, JR / A.C. 6056 / September 9, 2015

FACTS:
Felicisima (Felicisima), one of Eladio’s heir, engaged the services of Atty. Mendoza as her counsel for
the registration of two parcels of land. Felicisima signed a Contract for services stipulating that in the
event of a favorable judgment, Felicisima shall convey to Atty. Mendoza 1/5 of the lands subject of the
application or 1/5 of the proceeds should the same property be sold. A judgment was then issued granting
the registration of only one of the two parcels of land. Subsequently, the land was sold to Greenfield
Corporation. As a result, Atty. Mendoza filed with the RTC a claim to 1/5 of the proceeds of the sale of
the land by virtue of the Contract for services. Felicisima contended that Atty. Mendoza is not entitled to
the claim since they failed to register the other land. At this juncture, Felicima hired the services of Atty.
Navarro. The RTC ruled in favor of Atty. Mendoza, but Atty. Navarro filed an appeal to the CA. To
counter, Atty. Mendoza filed an execution pending appeal. Since no opposition by Atty. Navarro was
filed, RTC granted the execution pending appeal which resulted in the levy and transfer of the land to
Atty. Mendoza. Meanwhile, in the CA, Atty. Navarro failed to file an appellant’s brief so the CA
dismissed the appeal. Felicisima then filed disbarment cases against Atty. Mendoza and Atty. Navarro.
According to her, Atty. Mendoza induced her to sign the Contract for services which she does not truly
understand. As to Atty. Navarro, her case before the CA was neglected despite repeated follow-ups on her
part. She also points out that Atty. Navarro abandoned her case before the RTC when the latter failed to
file an opposition to Atty. Mendoza's motion for execution pending appeal, which resulted in the loss of
her properties

ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Mendoza and Atty. Navarro should be held FOR VIOLATING THE Code f
Professional Responsibility.

RULING:
Yes, Atty. Navarro should be held liable, but not Atty. Mendoza. With regard to Atty. Mendoza,
Felicisima failed to present evidence of deceit by Atty. Mendoza that the latter induced her to sign the
Contract for services. Besides, a contingent fee arrangement is valid in this jurisdiction and is generally
recognized as valid and binding but must be laid down in an express contract. As to Atty. Navarro, the
facts on record clearly established his failure to live up to the standards of diligence and competence of
the legal profession. Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility mandates that a lawyer shall
serve his client with competence and diligence. Rule 18.03 further provides that a lawyer shall not neglect
a legal matter entrusted to him and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable. Once
he agrees to take up the cause of a client, a lawyer owes fidelity to such cause and must always be
mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him. He must serve the client with competence and
diligence and champion the latter's cause with wholehearted fidelity, care and devotion. Elsewise stated,
he owes entire devotion to the interest of the client, warm zeal in the maintenance and defense of his
client's rights, and the exertion of his utmost learning and ability to the end that nothing be taken or
withheld from his client. This simply means that his client is entitled to the benefit of any and every
remedy and defense that is authorized by the law of the land and he may expect his lawyer to assert every
such remedy or defense.
CASE NO. 7
SPS. EMILIO AND ALICIA JACINTO V. ATTY. EMELIE P. BANGOT, JR., / A.C. 8494 /
October 5, 2016

FACTS
The complainants averred that they had then consulted with the respondent, briefing him on their concern
about their land, and delivering to him the documents pertinent to such; that after scrutinizing the documents,
he had told them that he would be initiating a case for certiorari in their behalf to nullify the order for the
reconstitution of the lost title covering Cad. 237 Lot No. 1351; that he had then insinuated that one of their lots
would be his attorney's fees; and that they had not initially agreed to the insinuation because the lots had
already been allocated to each of their seven children, but they had ultimately consented to giving him only a
portion of lot with an area of 250 square meters. However, respondent requested them to proceed to his law
office to sign a MOA and because of their trust to Atty. Bangot, the spouses did not bother reading the said
document and just signed it. It was only after they got home when they realized that the MOA stated
differently from what they previously agreed upon. The spouses alleged that Atty. Bangot   took advantage of
their old age, thus breaking the trust and confidence the client's and lawyer should uphold at all times in the
exercise of one's profession.

ISSUE
Whether or not Atty. Bangot should be held liable for violating his ethical duties as a member of the Bar in his
dealings with the complainants

RULING
Yes. All the foregoing circumstances established that the respondent was deceitful, dishonest and unreasonable
in his dealings with the complainants as his clients. He thus violated his Lawyer's Oath, whereby he vowed,
among others, to do no falsehood, and not to consent to the doing of any falsehood, as well as not to delay any
man's cause for money or malice but to conduct himself as a lawyer according to the best of his knowledge and
discretion "with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to his clients. He also breached several canons of
the Code of Professional Responsibility. We have said time and again, and this we cannot overemphasize, that
the Law is neither a trade nor a craft but a profession whose basic ideal is to render public service and to secure
justice for those who seek its aid. If the Law has to remain an honorable profession and has to attain its basic
ideal, those enrolled in its ranks should not only master its tenets and principles but should also, by their lives,
accord continuing fidelity to such tenets and principles. The respondent's behavior and deceit demonstrated a
preference for self-gain that transgressed his sworn duty of fidelity, loyalty and devotion to his clients' cause.
His betrayal of his clients' trust besmirched the honorable name of the Law Profession. These considerations
justify suspending him from the practice of law. Atty. Bangot was suspended for five (5) years and was not
entitled to recover any attorney’s fees from the complainants.
CASE NO. 8
BALINGIT V. ATTY. CERVANTES AND ATTY. DELARMENTE / A.C. 11059 / November
9, 2016

FACTS
Complainant together with Carlo, Kristopher and the heirs of Jose Antonio, Jr. hired the respondent in
filing a separate civil suit for damages and an administrative case with the Professional Regulation
Commission (PRC) against David, who passed the physician board exam. A demand letter was sent to
David for payment of P2, 000, 000.00 plus 25% as attorney’s fees. A letter was sent informing Atty.
Cervantes about the pending criminal case against David and requesting issuance of David’s license to
practice medicine be deferred or suspended until termination of the criminal case. The PRC replied and
informed Atty. Cervantes of the requirements in order to file an administrative case against David. Atty.
Cervantes signed and prepared an Agreement about the terms of respondents’ engagement addressed to
Kristopher, Carlo, and the heirs of Jose Antonio, Jr. which they did not sign. Respondents failed to
institute the separate civil suit for damages agreed upon while in the criminal case complainant and the
representatives of David agreed to settle. A Compromise Agreement was signed. Upon hearing the
Compromise Agreement, Atty. Cervantes demanded 10% of the amount of the compromise as the
attorney’s fee and P5, 000.00 as appearance fee which the complainant refused to pay. Atty. Cervantes
filed a criminal complaint for estafa against the complainant while the complainant filed the present
disbarment case against respondents before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines-Commission on Bar
Discipline (IBP-CBD). Respondents filled separate motions for extension of time to submit their answers.
Atty. Delarmente failed to file his answer whereas Atty. Cervantes filed a motion to admit his verified
answer. Atty. Cervantes denied receiving money and did not receive the acceptance and docket fees to the
case.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent shall be held liable for violating the Code of Professional Responsibility

HELD:
Yes. Rule 20.4 of the Code of Professional Responsibility advises that A lawyer shall avoid controversies
with clients concerning their compensation and to resort to judicial action only to prevent imposition,
injustice or fraud. It is improper for a lawyer to impose additional professional fees on his client that were
never mentioned nor agreed upon the time of the engagement of his services. In the case at bar, Atty.
Cervantes demanded, as success fee for the criminal case and the Compromise Agreement was entered in
the proceedings, P5, 000.00 appearance fee and 10% of the settlement. The Compromise Agreement was
outside the scope of respondents’ engagement. Matters of fees present an irreconcilable conflict of
interests between a client and his lawyer. The Court held that the respondent is guilty of being remiss in
their duties as counsel for complainant and that when a lawyer accepts a case he undertakes to give his
utmost attention, skill, and competence to it. His client has the right to expect that he will discharge his
duties diligently and exert his best efforts, learning, and ability to prosecute or defend his client's cause
with reasonable dispatch. The Court suspended Atty. Teodoro B. Delarmente and Atty. Renato M.
Cervantes for six months from the practice of law.
CASE NO. 9
LAW FIRM OF TUNGOL & TIBAYAN V. CA / G.R. No. 6298 / July 9, 2008

FACTS
Ingcos hired the petitioner law firm to enforce delivery of a land title. Complaingt was filed b the law
firm in behalf of the Ingcos before the HLUTRB against Villa Crista alleging that the Ingcos paid P5.1M
for a lot but the latter failed to deliver the title thereto. The Ingcos and Villa Crista entered into a
compromise whereby the latter was bound to refund the P4.8M provided that in case of breach of such
obligation, an additional of P200,000.00 would be paid by way of liquidated damages. Villa Crista failed
to pay such, so writ of execution has been issued. Sheriff levied and auctioned the 10 lots belonging to
Villa Crista. Ingcos bought 3 lots, the payment of which includes the P5.1M contract price for the initial
lot they primarily bought, P1.35M attorney’s fees, and other expenses. The Ingcos then terminated the
services of the law firm. The law firm then filed with the HLURB to recover the 25% of the excess of the
existing prevailing selling price or the fair market value of the 3 lots. It also filed for damages with the
RTC, arguing that the spouses still owes them P4.5M, that in their contract, the law firm was entitled to
25% of the total bid price.

ISSUE
Whether or not the law firm is entitled to additional fees

RULING
No. The spouses acquired the 3 lots being the highest bidder at the action sale. That is why it can
be said that the lots had been acquired not through the recovery efforts of the law firm. Had
other persons bidded a higher price, the matter of the three lots would be entirely impertinent
here. It is stretching the firm's contractual rights to say that the three lots acquired in the auction
by the Ingcos' was thru the law firm's contractual services. Moreover, during the negotioations
with Villa Crista, it was the Ingcos who were negotiating and not the lawyers. here is no positive
evidence shown that the law firm battled for its clients against Villa Crista during the negotiation
stage. When the action sale was made, the attorney-client relationship no longer existed. Thus,
we cannot include in the attorney's fees the 25% of the excess of the market value of the lots over
the P7,193,505.56 paid by the Ingcos in acquiring them Hence, the lawyers are not entitled to
additional fees.