GROUP II

willing to go to defend and protect the interest of your client? In this case, Atty. Paz was willing to go to the extent of concealing the commission of a crime inasmuch as Cora was also willing to keep quiet about the incident to avoid the scandal.

Paragraph 1: To what extent are you

Everyone is deemed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Not only does the law presume an accused to be innocent; he is also entitled to acquittal unless his guilt is proved beyond a reasonable doubt by procedure recognized by law. Rules of Court needs to be followed in presenting evidence

Atty. Paz act of concealing the commission of the crime cannot be considered unethical. Manuel and Cora were willing to enter into a compromise agreement that would result in the non-filing of the complaint by Cora.

Canon 1, Rule 1.03 A lawyer shall not, for any corrupt motive or interest, encourage any suit or proceeding or delay any mans cause. Canon 1, Rule 1.04 A lawyer shall encourage his clients to avoid, end or settle a controversy if it will admit of a fair settlement.

Paragraph 2: Comment on the action of Atty. Paz. Note that it is not uncommon for the victim or his/her family in a criminal case to settle with the accused, and after the settlement of the civil aspect of the crime, would desist from prosecuting the case. Or, even after the case has been filed in Court, a complainant would desist from further prosecuting the case; in which case, the prosecution would be constrained to have the case dismissed because it is unable to prove beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused, the complaining witness having turned hostile. Note further that the matter has not reached the court and the task of Atty. Paz was precisely to prevent the incident from being filed in court.

Canon 1, Rule 1.04 A lawyer shall encourage his clients to avoid, end or settle a controversy if it will admit of a fair settlement. Counsel should promote settlement if it is possible He should, moreover, give his client the benefit of sound advice on any such and familiar matters and comply with the clients lawful instructions relative thereto. Canon 8, Canons of Professional Ethics As a client has the exclusive control of the cause of action, the claim or demand sued upon and the subject matter of the litigation, he has, generally speaking, the right to dismiss, settle or waive his cause

Paragraph 3. This case involves rape of an 18-year old barrio lass. We will assume that you (Atty. Paz) decided to take on the case and prepared all of the documents needed. In what kinds of cases would you be willing to do this? Will you do this in a case involving rape of a minor or a murder case? What circumstances or factors would impel you to consider handling these cases and prepare for the accused the documents needed to settle the civil aspect with the complainant?

Presumption of Innocence We are minions of justice, we must protect the rights of everyone, even the devil himself, if he deserves it. Dean Jose Roy III

Republic of the Philippines Candoni, Negros Occidental SWORN STATEMENT

) ) S.S.

and out of himself. The existed carnal knowledge between us is voluntary on my part and I have no intention whatsoever to use it against Manuel nor file any complaint or cause of action against him in the future. I am executing this Sworn Statement to attest the truth of the foregoing and to renounce any future claim against Manuel and his Family arising from the above incident considering that it was a willful and voluntary act on my part. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my signature this ___ day of _____________ at ____________________, Philippines.

I, CORA _________________, of legal age, Filipino, single, and with address at Candoni, Negros Occidental, hereby depose and state that: I am working as a Household Helper for Ms. YsabelYnares at her residence at Candoni, Negros Occidental. Ms. Ynares had been very kind to me to the point that she even acted as my guardian in the absence of my parents to whom I have no communication for a long period of time. In view of the kindness and treatment of Ms. Ynares to me I never treated myself as a mere Household Helper but also a part of their family; On __________________ Ms. Ynares nephew named Manuel _____________ arrived at Candoni, Negros Occidental to take a vacation on which I was also obliged to serve him being our visitor at that time; Manuel had been very kind and cordial to me during his stay in his aunts residence. He never showed any ill-will or bad faith towards me. He spent most of his time attending town events such as fiestas and other gathering within Candoni and the surrounding towns of Negros occidental; In one instance, during a town fiesta, I was able to see Manuel totally drunk and out of himself. This prompted me to immediately assist him in going home considering that I am the only person who knows him at that time in that area; While going home, Manuel was unconscious; there are instances where he will whisper the name Wendy. He also thought that I am Wendy that for several intervals he would then hug me and seek forgiveness; Upon reaching home, I hurriedly brought Manuel inside his room. I took a towel and a basin of hot water to help Manuel recover consciousness. I also assisted him in changing his clothes; this was the time when he unconsciously and unceremoniously kissed me, thinking that I was Wendy. This was also the moment I realized that the girl named Wendy was his wife; Initially, I avoided Manuel from his acts; however, as he appears to be very sad and crying, I hugged and comforted him to the very least. It was that moment that I lost control of myself. I was carried away by the fact that Manuel was kind to me and it triggered some attraction. I voluntarily consented and consciously submitted myself to Manuels advances which resulted to carnal knowledge without force or intimidation on my part; I regret the fact that I submitted myself to Manuels advances, however, I am fully aware at that time that I was the one with sober and conscious mind while Manuel was totally dr unk

_________________

CORA

Affiant

WITNESSES: _______________________ _______________________ ACKNOWLEDGMENT BEFORE ME, a Notary Public for and in the above jurisdiction, on the ______ day of ____________________, personally appeared the Affiant exhibiting to me his Passport/Community Tax Certificate No. ______________ issued on _________________, in ________________, who is known to me and to me known to be same person who executed the foregoing Sworn Statement consisting of two (2) page, including the page on which this acknowledgement is written, and he acknowledged to me that the same is his free and voluntary act and deed. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my notarial seal on the date and at the place first above written. Doc. No.: ______; Page No.:______; Book No.:______; Series of 20___.

c. Manuel paid Atty. Paz attorneys fees for her services. Is there a standard fee for this kind of legal services? How much should Atty. Paz charge as attorneys fees? Explain to the class your basis in coming out with the amount. Report on the cases of Pineda v. Atty. De Jesus, August 23, 2006, 499 SCRA 608, Roxas v. De Zuzuarregui, January 31, 2006, 481 SCRA 258, and other cases involving attorneys fees and relate to the class what you have learned from these cases.

SEC. 24. Compensation of attorneys; agreement as to fees. An attorney shall be entitled to have and recover from his client no more than a reasonable compensation for his services, with a view to the importance of the subject matter of the controversy, the extent of the services rendered, and the professional standing of the attorney. x xx. A written contract for services shall control the amount to be paid therefore unless found by the court to be unconscionable or unreasonable.

Attorneys fees are unconscionable if they affront ones sense of justice, decency or reasonableness.49 It becomes axiomatic therefore, that power to determine the reasonableness or the, unconscionable character of attorney's fees stipulated by the parties is a matter falling within the regulatory prerogative of the courts.50
(Roxasv.

De Zuzuarregui)

In the instant case, Atty. Paz managed to convinceManuel to pay 300,000 which was accepted by Cora. The services rendered by Atty. Paz was merely a mediation between the parties, there was actually no full-blown hearing and resorting the matter to a compromise agreement. This however, based on the facts, did not specify the amount or was there any agreement on compensation or legal service fee due Atty . Paz. The law provides that, the measure of compensation for a lawyers services as against his client should properly be addressed by the rule of quantum meruit long adopted in this jurisdiction. 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, 41 but recoverable by him from his client.

Where a lawyer is employed without a price for his services being agreed upon, the courts shall fix the amount on quantum meruit basis. In such a case, he would be entitled to receive what he merits for his services. (TRADERS ROYAL BANK EMPLOYEES UNIONINDEPENDENTvs.NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and EMMANUEL NOEL A. CRUZ) which can only be implemented given the following circumstances: 1. There is no express contract for payment of attorneys fees agreed upon between the lawyer and the client; 2. When although there is a formal contract for attorneys fees, the stipulated fees are found unconscionable or unreasonable by the court. 3. When the contract for attorneys fees is void due to purely formal matters or defects of execution 4. When the counsel, for justifiable cause, was not able to finish the case to its conclusion 5. When lawyer and client disregard the contract for attorneys fees. As between Atty. Paz and client Ysabel and Cora, absent any contract as to the amount of legal services fee, and yet achieved the desired outcome which is to avoid further scandal and conceal the incident between the parties themselves satisfies the needs of her client.

The National Housing Authority (NHA) filed expropriation proceedings against the Zuzuarreguis, parcels of land belonging to the latter situated in Antipolo, Rizal, with a total land area of 1,790,570.36 square meters, more or less. The Zuzuarreguis engaged the legal services of Attys. Romeo G. Roxas and Santiago N. Pastor, to represent them in the Civil Case.

Its main task is to secure the just compensation with the National Housing Authority and other governmental agencies at a price of ELEVEN PESOS (P11.00) or more per square meter. Any lower amount shall not entitle them to any attorneys fees. At such price of P11.00 per square meter or more our contingent fee[s] is THIRTY PERCENT (30%) of the just compensation. It was also agreed that The family will be willing to accept NHA 5-year bonds as part payment up to 75% of the total compensation. and that their lawyers fees shall be in the proportion of the cash/bonds ratio of the just compensation and are subject to 10% withholding tax.

A Letter-Agreement was executed by and between Antonio Zuzuarregui, Jr., Pacita Javier and Enrique De Zuzuarregui, on the one hand, and Attys. Romeo G. Roxas and Santiago Pastor.

We hereby confirm and agree that we are willing to accept as final and complete settlement for our 179 hectares expropriated by NHA a price of SEVENTEEN PESOS (P17.00) per square meter, or for a total of THIRTY MILLION FOUR HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P30.4 Million), all payable in NHA Bonds. We also agree and confirm that for and in consideration of your services as our lawyers and counsels in the said expropriation case, we commit and bind ourselves to pay to you, your heirs or assignees-in-interest, as your contingent attorneys fees any and all amount in excess of the SEVENTEEN PESOS (P17.00) per square meter payable in NHA bonds as mentioned above.

WHETHER OR NOT THE LETTER-AGREEMENT DATED 10 DECEMBER 1985, EXECUTED BY THE ZUZUARREGUIS, AND ATTYS. ROXAS AND PASTOR, FIXING THE EXACT AMOUNT THAT MUST GO TO THE FORMER, SHOULD STAND AS LAW BETWEEN THE PARTIES.

It is basic that a contract is the law between the parties. Obligations arising from contracts have the force of law between the contracting parties and should be complied with in good faith. Unless the stipulations in a contract are contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy, the same are binding as between the parties.42 Under the contract in question, Attys. Roxas and Pastor are to receive contingent feesfor their professional services. It is a deeply-rooted rule that contingent fees are not per se prohibited by law. They are sanctioned by Canon 13 of the Canons of Professional Ethics, viz:

Contingent Fees. A contract for contingent fee, where sanctioned by law, should be reasonable under all the circumstances of the case including the risk and uncertainty of the compensation, but should always be subject to the supervision of a court, as to its reasonableness.

Canon 20, Rule 20.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and also Section 24, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. Attorneys fees are unconscionable if they affront ones sense of justice, decency or reasonableness.49 It becomes axiomatic therefore, that power to determine the reasonableness or the, unconscionable character of attorney's fees stipulated by the parties is a matter falling within the regulatory prerogative of the courts. In the instant case, Attys. Roxas and Pastor received an amount which was equal to forty-four percent (44%) of the just compensation paid (including the yield on the bonds) by the NHA to the Zuzuarreguis, or an amount equivalent to P23,980,000.00 of the P54,500,000.00. Considering that there was no full blown hearing in the expropriation case, ending as it did in a Compromise Agreement, the 44% is, undeniably, unconscionable and excessive under the circumstances. Its reduction of the Court of Appeals is, therefore, in order. Hence the court ordered Attys. Romeo G. Roxas and Santiago N. Pastor to return to the Zuzuarreguis the amount of P17,073,224.84.

d. Considering that Atty. Paz had to explain the documents to Cora she had asked her to sign, would this be a case of conflict of interest considering that Atty. Paz acted for both parties Manuel and Cora? In this situation, would you ask Cora to sign the documents without the assistance of a lawyer of her own choice?
This involves another common dilemma: whether you, as a lawyer, should insist that the other party be counseled also by a lawyer to ensure fairness? But then if Cora were to be counseled also by a lawyer, it may make things more difficult for Atty. Paz and Manuel.

Aurora Pineda Filed an action for declaration of nullity of marriage against herein petitioner,Vinson Pineda in the RTC of Pasig City Branch 151. Petitioner was represented by herein respondents, Attys. Clodualdo de Jesus, Carlos Ambrosio and Emmanuel Mariano.

Throughout the proceedings, respondent counsels were well compensated. They including their relatives and friends even availed free products and treatments from Vinsons dermatology clinic. This notwithstanding, they billed Vinson additional legal fees amounting to Php 16.5 million which was however refused to pay, instead, petitioner issued them several checks totaling Php1.12 million as full payment for settlement.

Not satisfied, respondents filed in the same trial court a motion for payment of lawyers fees for Php 50million.

ISSUE: Whether or not respondents were entitled to additional legal fees. HELD: The professional engagement between petitioner and respondents was governed by the principle of quantum meruit, which means as much as the lawyer deserves. 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. 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. Demanding 50 million on top of the generous sums and perks already given to them was an act of unconscionable greed which is shocking to this court.

The fact that Atty. Paz had to explain the documents to Cora that she had asked her to sign does not constitute a conflict of interest, considering that Atty. Paz acted for both parties.

Under Canon 6 of the of the Canon of Professional Ethics, a lawyer represents conflicting interests when, in behalf of one client, it is his duty to contend for that which duty to another client requires him to oppose. There is a case of conflict of interest where there is an inconsistency in the interests of both parties. It is present when the lawyer argues for one client, and then he will oppose this argument when he argues for the other client. Also as stated in the case of Pierce v. Palmer (31 R.I. 432), there is representation of conflicting interests if the acceptance of the lawyer of the other partys case would require the attorney to do anything which would injuriously affect his first client in any matter which he represents him and whether knowledge acquired through the first client will be used against him by the second client.

In the case at bar, there cannot be any conflict of interest because Manuel and Cora are both willing to settle since they both do not want any scandal and the agreement to settle was consensual. Cora was not forced into settling. Rule 15.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility also provides that a lawyer may, with the written consent of all concerned, act as mediator, conciliator, or arbitrator in settling disputes. It is also important to note that in the case at bar, the matter has not yet reached the court.

Cora should first be informed of her right to counsel and of the advantages and benefits of having her own lawyer. We suggest that Cora should also put into writing the fact that she is not hiring Paz as her counsel and that the purpose of her meeting with Atty. Paz was only for her to sign the affidavit that states that she will not file any action in the future against Manuel.

A lawyer should always insist that the other party be counseled also by a lawyer to ensure fairness and proper understanding of the situation and appreciation of the law in order for her to know the nature of the crime, its possible consequence and also possible remedies. A person should be made fully aware of her rights under the judicial system. Also as a lawyer, it is important to take care of ones name and reputation in the field. Insisting that the other would get her own counsel.

Atty. Manuel N. Camacho filed a complaint against the lawyers comprising the Pangulayan and Associates Law Offices, namely, Attorneys Luis Meinrado C. Pangulayan, Regina D. Balmores, Catherine V. Laurel, and Herbert Joaquin P. Bustos. Complainant, the hired counsel of some expelled students from the AMA Computer College ("AMACC"). Camacho charged that respondents, then counsel for the defendants, procured and effected on separate occasions, without his knowledge, compromise agreements ("Re-Admission Agreements") with four of his clients in a civil case which, in effect, required them to waive all kinds of claims they might have had against AMACC, the principal defendant, and to terminate all civil, criminal and administrative proceedings filed against it. Complainant averred that such an act of respondents was unbecoming of any member of the legal profession warranting either disbarment or suspension from the practice of law.

In his comment, Attorney Pangulayan acknowledged that not one of his co-respondents had taken part in the negotiation, discussion, formulation, or execution of the various Re-Admission Agreements complained of and were, in fact, no longer connected at the time with the Pangulayan and Associates Law Offices. The Re-Admission Agreements, he claimed, had nothing to do with the dismissal of the Civil Case and were executed for the sole purpose of effecting the settlement of an administrative case involving nine students of AMACC who were expelled therefrom upon the recommendation of the Student Disciplinary Tribunal. The students were found the guilty of the use of indecent language and unauthorized use of the student publication funds. The body recommended the penalty of expulsion against the erring students.

Cerina B. Likong filed this administrative case against Atty. Alexander H. Lim, seeking the latter's disbarment for alleged malpractice and grave misconduct. In September 1984, Likong obtained a loan of P92,100.00 from a certain Geesnell L. Yap. He executed a promissory note in favor of Yap and a deed of assignment, assigning to Yap pension checks which she regularly receives from the United States government as a widow of a US pensioner. The aforementioned deed of assignment states that the same shall be irrevocable until the loan is fully paid. He also executed a special power of attorney authorizing Yap to get, demand, collect and receive her pension checks from the post office at Tagbilaran City. The above documents were apparently prepared and notarized by respondent Alexander H. Lim, Yap's counsel. On 11 December 1984, Likong informed the Tagbilaran City post office that she was revoking the special power of attorney. Yap filed a complaint for injunction with damages against complainant. Respondent Alexander H. Lim appeared as counsel for Yap.

The court then preliminary injunction to prevent all post offices in the Philippines from releasing pension checks to complainant. On 26 July 1985, Likong and Yap filed a joint motion to allow the latter to withdraw the pension checks. This motion does not bear the signatures of complainant's counsel of record but only the signatures of both parties, "assisted by" respondent Attorney Alexander H. Lim.

On 2 August 1985, complainant and Yap entered into a compromise agreement again without the participation of the former's counsel. In the compromise agreement, it was stated that Cerina B. Likong admitted an obligation to Yap of P150,000.00. It was likewise stated therein that complainant and Yap agreed that the amount would be paid in monthly installments over a period of 54 months at an interest of 40% per annum discounted every six (6) months. The compromise agreement was approved by the trial court on 15 August 1985.

Cerina B. Likong filed the present complaint for disbarment, based on the following allegations: 7. In all these motions, complainant was prevented from seeking assistance, advise and signature of any of her two (2) lawyers; no copy thereof was furnished to either of them or at least to complainant herself despite the latter's pleas to be furnished copies of the same; 8. Complainant was even advised by respondent that it was not necessary for her to consult her lawyers under the pretense that: (a) this could only jeopardize the settlement; (b) she would only be incurring enormous expense if she consulted a new lawyer; (c) respondent was assisting her anyway; (d) she had nothing to worry about the documents foisted upon her to sign; (e) complainant need not come to court afterwards to save her time; and in any event respondent already took care of everything;

Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Ethics states: 9. Negotiations with opposite party. A lawyer should not in any way communicate upon the subject of controversy with a party represented by counsel; much less should he undertake to negotiate or compromise the matter with him, but should deal only with his counsel. It is incumbent upon the lawyer most particularly to avoid everything that may tend to mislead a party not represented by counsel and he should not undertake to advise him as to the law. The Code of Professional Responsibility states: Rule 1.01 A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct. Rule 8.02 A lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly, encroach upon the professional employment of another lawyer; however, it is the right of any lawyer, without fear or favor, to give proper advice and assistance to those seeking relief against unfaithful or neglectful counsel. Rule 15.03 A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts.

We consider the acts of Smiths lawyers as unethical because it is a violation of Canon 9 of the Canon of Professional Ethics, which states that:

A lawyer should not in any way communicate upon the subject of controversy with a party represented by counsel, much less should he undertake to negotiate or compromise the matter with him, but should only deal with his counsel. It is incumbent upon the lawyer most particularly to avoid everything that may tend to mislead a party not represented by counsel and he should not undertake to advise him as to law.

CANON 8 A lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy, fairness, and candor towards his professional colleagues, and shall avoid harassing tactics against opposing counsel. Rule 8.02 A lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly, encroach upon the professional employment of another lawyer; however, it is the right of any lawyer, without fear or favor, to give proper advice and assistance to those seeking relief against unfaithful or neglectful counsel.

In cases that involve a party not being represented by a counsel, it is important to avoid suspicion or accusation of using undue influence. Art. 1337 of the Civil Code provides that: There is undue influence when a person takes improper advantage of his power over the will of another, depriving the latter of a reasonable freedom of choice. The following circumstances shall be considered: the confidential, family, spiritual and other relations between the parties, or the fact that the person alleged to have been unduly influenced was suffering from mental weakness or was ignorant or in financial distress.

Patricia Gail Cayco Cindy Ilagan Cherry Lyn Santos Joseph Ingua Melvin Silvestre Carlo Tagayuna