Attorney’s fees

and Compensation
for legal services
Problem Areas in Legal Ethics
Arellano University School of Law – Arellano Law Foundation
2017-2018

1
CANON 20 - A LAWYER SHALL CHARGE ONLY
FAIR AND REASONABLE FEES.

 Rule 20.01 - A lawyer shall be guided by the following

factors in determining his fees:

 (a) the time spent and the extent of the service rendered or
required;
 (b) the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved;
 (c) The importance of the subject matter;
 (d) The skill demanded;
 (e) The probability of losing other employment as a result
of acceptance of the proffered case;

2
Cont…

 (f) The customary charges for similar services and the

schedule of fees of the IBP chapter to which he belongs;
 (g) The amount involved in the controversy and the benefits
resulting to the client from the service;
 (h) The contingency or certainty of compensation;
 (i) The character of the employment, whether occasional or
established; and
 (j) The professional standing of the lawyer.

3
Cont…

 Rule 20.02 - A lawyer shall, in case of referral, with the

consent of the client, be entitled to a division of fees in
proportion to the work performed and responsibility assumed.
 Rule 20.03 - A lawyer shall not, without the full knowledge
and consent of the client, accept any fee, reward, costs,
commission, interest, rebate or forwarding allowance or
other compensation whatsoever related to his professional
employment from anyone other than the client.
 Rule 20.04 - A lawyer shall avoid controversies with clients
concerning his compensation and shall resort to judicial
action only to prevent imposition, injustice or fraud.

4
 Bases for just compensation

 With his capital consisting 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 his
client to escape payment of his just
compensation.– Masmud v. NLRC, G.R. No. 183385, February 13,
2009

5
 “Fee” v. “Lien”

 They are two different matters.

 It is axiomatic, of course, that [lawyer] must show
that he is or will become entitled to a fee before he is
entitled to a lien. - The Industry Network System, Inc. v. Armstrong
World Industries, Inc. 54 F.3d 150 (1995)

6
 Professional fee is subject to
court’s regulatory power
 Upon taking his attorney’s oath as an officer of
the court, a lawyer submits himself to the
authority of the courts to regulate his right to
charge professional fees. –Rayos v. Atty. Hernandez, G.R.
No. 169079, February 12, 2007


7
Reasons why lawyer’s compensation
is subject to the supervision of
the court
 It follows that a lawyer’s compensation for
professional services rendered is subject to the
supervision of the court, not just to guarantee
that the fees he charges and receives remain
reasonable and commensurate with the services
rendered, but also to maintain the dignity and
integrity of the legal profession to which he
belongs. – Rayos v. Atty. Hernandez, G.R. No. 169079, February
12, 2007

8
 Collection suit should be the last resort

 Rul e 20. 4 of t he Code of Pr of essi onal Res ponsi bility advi ses
l awyers t o avoi d contr oversi es wi t h cli ent s concer ni ng t hei r
co mpensati on and t o r esort t o j udi ci al acti on onl y to pr event
i mposi ti on, inj usti ce or fraud. Sui ts t o coll ect fees shoul d be
avoi ded and shoul d be fil ed onl y when ci rcu mst ances f orce
l awyers t o resort t o it. - Pineda v. Atty. De Jesus, et. al. G.R. No.
155224 August 23, 2006

9
 Rule 138
 Sec. 24. Compensati on of att or neys; agree ment as to f ees. - An
att or ney shal l be entitl ed t o have and recover fr om hi s cli ent no
mor e t han a reasonabl e co mpensati on f or hi s servi ces, wit h a
vi ew:
1) t o t he import ance of t he subj ect matt er of the contr oversy,
2) t he ext ent of t he servi ces r ender ed, and
3) t he pr of essi onal standi ng of t he att or ney.
 No court shall be bound by t he opi ni on of att or neys as expert
wi t nesses as t o t he pr oper co mpensati on, but may di sr egar d
such t esti mony and base its concl usi on on i ts own pr of essi onal
knowl edge. A wri tten contract f or servi ces shall contr ol t he
a mount t o be pai d t her efor unl ess f ound by t he court t o be
unconsci onabl e or unr easonabl e.

10
Cont …

 Secti on 25, Rul e 138 of t he Rul es of Court:

 SEC. 25. Unl awf ul ret enti on of cli ent ’s funds; cont empt — When
an att or ney unj ustl y ret ai ns i n hi s hands money of hi s cli ent
aft er it has been de manded he may be puni shed f or cont e mpt
as an offi cer of t he Court who has misbehaved i n his offi ci al
transacti ons; but pr oceedi ngs under t hi s secti on shal l not be a
bar t o a cri mi nal pr osecution.

11
 Ru le o n divisio n of leg al fees

 Rule 9.02 - A lawyer shall not divide or stipulate to divide

a fee for legal services with persons not licensed to
practice law, except:
 (a) W here there is a pre-existing agreement with a partner
or associate that, upon the latter's death, money shall be
paid over a reasonable period of time to his estate or to
persons specified in the agreement; or
 (b) W here a lawyer undertakes to complete unfinished legal
business of a deceased lawyer; or
 (c) W here a lawyer or law firm includes non-lawyer employees
in a retirement plan even if the plan is based in whole or
in part, on a profit sharing agreement.

12
 C A N O N 16 - A LA W Y ER SH A LL H O LD IN TR UST A LL
M O N EY S A N D PR O P ER TIES O F H IS C LIEN T TH A T M A Y
C O M E IN TO H IS PR O FESSIO N .
 Rule 16.01 - A lawyer shall account for all money or
property collected or received for or from the client.
 Rule 16.02 - A lawyer shall keep the funds of each client
separate and apart from his own and those of others kept by
him.
 Rule 16.03 - A lawyer shall deliver the funds and property
of his client when due or upon demand. However, he shall
have a lien over the funds and may apply so much thereof as
may be necessary to satisfy his lawful fees and
disbursements, giving notice promptly thereafter to his
client. He shall also have a lien to the same extent on all
judgments and executions he has secured for his client as
provided for in the Rules of Court.

13
Cont…

 Rule 16.04 - A lawyer shall not borrow money from his client
unless the client's interest are fully protected by the
nature of the case or by independent advice. N either shall a
lawyer lend money to a client except, when in the interest
of justice, he has to advance necessary expenses in a legal
matter he is handling for the client.

 This rule is intended to prevent the lawyer from taking

advantage of his influence over the client. – Jun io v . A tty .
Grupo , A .C . N o. 5020 , D ecember 18 , 2001

14
 N o n -p aym en t o f lo an is a
vio latio n of P CR n o t
m isap p ro p riatio n o r em b ezzlem en t
 Respondent ’s liability is thus not for misappropriation or
embezzlement but for violation of Rule 16.04 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility which forbids lawyers from
borrowing money from their clients unless the latter ’s
interests are protected by the nature of the case or by
independent advice. In this case, respondent ’ s liability
is compounded by the fact that not only did he not give any
security for the payment of the amount loaned to him but
that he has also refused to pay the said amount. His claim
that he could not pay the loan “because circumstances . . .
did not allow it” and that, because of the passage of time,
“he somehow forgot about his obligation” only underscores
his blatant disregard of his obligation which reflects on
his honesty and candor.
15
 W hether or not an attorney who was engaged on a
contingent fee basis may, in order to collect his
fees, prosecute an appeal despite his client's
refusal to appeal the decision of the trial court .
 A practicing attorney, entered into a written agreement with
the private respondent to appear as her counsel in a
petition for probate of the holographic will. Under the
will, a piece of real property at Sales Street, Quiapo,
Manila, was bequeathed to private respondent. It was agreed
that the attorney ’s contigent fee would be thirty-five per
cent (35%) of the property that private respondent may
receive upon the probate of the will.
 The payment of his fees is contingent and dependent upon
the successful probate of the holographic will. Since the
petition for probate was dismissed by the lower court, the
contingency did not occur. Attorney Leviste is not entitled
to his fee. - Leviste v . CA , G .R . N o. L-29184 [1989]
16
 I s t he r i ght of a cl i ent t o ent er i nt o a
compr omi se agr eement wi t hout t he consent of
hi s l awyer def eat ed by a cont r ar y wr i t t en
cont r act ?
 It appears fro m t he r ecord t hat on Jul y 31, 1921, the r espondent s
by means of a wri tten contract, ret ai ned t he petiti oner t o
repr esent t hem as t hei r l awyer. The contr act fi xed the petiti oner' s
f ee at P200 in advance wi t h an addi ti onal conti gent f ee of P1, 300.
It was al so provi ded i n t he contr act t hat respondent shoul d not
co mpr o mi se t he cl ai m agai nst t he def endant i n t he case wi t hout
expr ess consent of hi s l awyer.

 Thr ough t he sol e eff ort of respondents t he case was di s missed

wi t hout notice t o t hei r counsel.

17
 Right of a client to compromise suit
 The cli ent has al so an undoubt ed ri ght t o co mpr omi se a sui t
wi t hout t he i nterventi on of hi s l awyer.

 Though t here i s a vali d agr ee ment f or t he pay ment t o t he

att or ney of a l ar ge pr opor ti on of t he su m r ecover ed i n case of
success t hi s does not gi ve t he att or ney such an int er est i n t he
cause of action t hat it prevents pl ai ntiff fr om co mpr omisi ng t he
sui t. – Rust ia v. The Judge of Fir st Inst ance of Bat angas, G.R. No.
L-19695 Nove mber 17, 1922

 We have r ecentl y hel d t hat a cli ent has al ways t he ri ght t o settl e
hi s cause of acti on and st op liti gati on at any st age of t he
pr oceedi ng, subj ect, however, t o t he right of t he att or ney t o
recei ve co mpensati on f or servi ces r ender ed. - Ar o v. The Hon.
Nañawa, G.R. No. L-24163 [ 1969]
18
 Applies only in civil cases

 Rul e 1. 04 - A l awyer shall encour age hi s cli ents t o avoi d, end or

settl e a controversy if it will admit of a f ai r settl eme nt.

19
 Limitation of client’s right
to compromise suit
 While We here reaffirm the rule that "the client has an undoubted right
to compromise a suit without the intervention of his lawyer", We hold
that when such compromise is entered into in fraud of the lawyer, with
intent to deprive him of the fees justly due him, the compromise must
be subject to the said fees, and that when it is evident that the said
fraud is committed in confabulation with the adverse party who had
knowledge of the lawyer's contingent interest or such interest appears of
record and who would benefit under such compromise, the better
practice is to settle the matter of the attorney's fees in the same
proceeding, after hearing all the affected parties and without prejudice
to the finality of the compromise in so far as it does not adversely
affect the rights of the lawyer. - Ar o v. The Hon. Nañawa, G. R. No. L-
24163 [1969]

20
 Q u an tu m m eru it

 The principle of quantum meruit (as much as he deserves) may

be a basis for determining the reasonable amount of
attorney ’s fees.
 Quantum meruit is a device to prevent undue enrichment based
on the equitable postulate that it is unjust for a person to
retain benefit without paying for it. It is applicable even
if there was a formal written contract for attorney ’ s fees
as long as the agreed fee was found by the court to be
unconscionable. - A tty . Oroc io v . A ngu lan et . a l., G .R . N o .
179892-93 , January 30 , 2009

21
 2 p u rp o ses of ap p licatio n
Q u an tu m m eru it
 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. - P ineda v .
Atty . D e Jesus, et . a l. G .R . N o . 155224 August 23 , 2006

22
 W h e n is Q uantu m m eru it au th o rized

 (1) there is no express contract for payment of attorney's

fees agreed upon between the lawyer and the client;
 (2) when although there is a formal contract for attorney's
fees, the fees stipulated are found unconscionable or
unreasonable by the court; and
 (3) when the contract for attorney's fee's is void due to
purely formal 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
attorney's fees, - R illo za , et . a l. v . Eastern
Te lecommun icat ions Ph ils., Inc ., G .R . N o . 104600 [1999]

23
 Facto rs fo r ap p licatio n o f
q u an tu m m eru it
 In fixing a reasonable compensation for the services
rendered by a lawyer on the basis of quantum meruit, 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 proferred
case; customary charges for similar services; amount
involved in the controversy and the benefits resulting to
the client; certainty of compensation; character of
employment; and professional standing of the lawyer, may be
considered. (A tty . Oroc io v . A ngu lan et . a l., G .R . N o .
179892-93 , January 30 , 2009)

24
 The court shall fix the amount
 I n fi xi ng a r easonabl e compensati on for t he ser vi ces r ender ed by
a l awyer on the basi s of quant u m mer uit, t he el e ments t o be
consi der ed are gener all y
( 1) t he i mpor tance of t he subj ect matter i n contr oversy,
( 2) t he ext ent of servi ces render ed, and
( 3) t he pr of essi onal standi ng of t he l awyer.
 A det er mi nati on of t hese f act ors woul d i ndi spensabl y r equi r e
not hi ng l ess t han a f ull -bl own tri al wher e pri vat e r espondents can
adduce evi dence t o est abl ish t he ri ght t o l awf ul att or ney' s f ees
and f or petitioner t o oppose or r ef ut e the sa me. The tri al court
has t he pri nci pal task of fi xi ng t he a mount of att or ney's fees.
Hence, t he necessi ty of a heari ng i s beyond cavil. -Rilloza, et . al. v.
East er n Teleco mmu nicat ions Phils., Inc., G.R. No. 104600 [ 1999]

25
 Champertous contract
 "1. On all commission or attorney’s fees that we shall receive from
our clients by virtue of the collection that we shall be able to effect
on their accounts, we shall divide fifty-fifty. Likewise you are entitled
to commission, 50/50 from domestic, inheritance and commercial
from our said clients or in any criminal cases where they are
involved.”

 We hold that the said agreement is void because it was

tantamount to malpractice which is "the practice of soliciting cases
at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid
agents or brokers" Sec. 27, Rule 138, Rules of Court). Malpractice
ordinarily refers to any malfeasance or dereliction of duty committed
by a lawyer. Section 27 gives a special and technical meaning to the
term "malpractice" (Act No. 2828, amending sec. 21 of Act No. 190).
– Tan Tek Beng v. David, A.C. No. 1261. December 29, 1983

26
 A g reem en t to p ay all exp en ses of
p ro ceed in g s
 An agreement whereby an attorney agrees to pay expenses of
proceedings to enforce the client 's rights is champertous
[JBP Holding Corp. v. U.S. 166 F. Supp. 324 (1958)]. Such
agreements are against public policy especially where, as in
this case, the attorney has agreed to carry on the action at
his own expense in consideration of some bargain to have
part of the thing in dispute [See Sampliner v. Motion
Pictures Patents Co., et al., 255 F. 242 (1918)]. The
execution of these contracts violates the fiduciary
relationship between the lawyer and his client, for which
the former must incur administrative sanctions. - A tty .
Oroc io v . A ngu lan et . a l., G .R . N o . 179892-93 , January 30 ,
2009

27
 Funding litigation

 “ [A]s l ong as liti gati on and access t o t he courts r e mai n expensi ve,
t hen anyone who has a right t hat stands i n need of vi ndi cati on
shoul d be abl e t o obt ai n f undi ng fro m anyone wi lli ng t o offer
it and on what ever t er ms it i s off er ed.”
- Neuber ger , Fr om Barretry, Maint enance and Cha mpert y t o
Lit igat ion Funding, Speech at Gray’s Inn, May 8, 2013.

28
Pay the law firm not the handling lawyer

 When a cli ent e mpl oys t he ser vi ces of a l aw fir m, he does not
e mpl oy t he ser vi ces of t he l awyer who i s assi gned to personall y
handl e t he case. Rat her, he e mpl oys the enti re l aw fir m. I n t he
event t hat t he counsel appeari ng f or the cli ent r esigns, t he fir mi s
bound t o provi de a r epl ace ment.
- Rilloza, et. al. v. East ern Teleco mmunicat ions Phils., Inc., G.R. No.
104600 [ 1999]

29
 Th ere m u st be a favo rab le ju d g m en t

 A charging lien to be enforceable as security for the

payment of attorney's fees requires as a condition sine qua
non a judgment for money and execution in pursuance of such
judgment secured in the main action by the attorney in favor
of his client. A charging lien presupposes that the attorney
has secured a favorable money judgment for his client. -
R illoza , et . a l. v . Eastern Te lecommunicat ions Ph ils ., Inc .,
G .R . N o . 104600 [1999]

30
 The f oll owi ng ar e t he ci rcu mst ances t o be
consi dered i n deter mi ni ng t he co mpensati on
of an attor ney

1. t he a mount and char acter of t he ser vi ces r ender ed;

2. t he l abor, ti me, and tr oubl e i nvol ved;
3. t he nat ur e and i mport ance of t he litigati on or busi ness i n whi ch
t he servi ces wer e r ender ed; t he r esponsi bility i mposed;
4. t he a mount of money or t he val ue of t he pr operty aff ect ed by t he
contr oversy, or i nvol ved in t he e mpl oyme nt,
5. t he skill and experi ence call ed f or i n t he perf or mance of t he
ser vi ces;

31
6. the professional character and social standing of the
attorney;
7. the results secured; and
8. whether or not the fee is absolute or contingent, it being a
recognized rule that an attorney may properly charge a much
a larger fee when it is to be contingent that when it is
not.
9. The financial ability of the defendant may also be
considered not to enhance the amount above a reasonable
compensation, but to determine whether or not he is able to
pay a fair and just compensation for the services rendered,
or as incident in ascertaining the importance and gravity of
the interests involved in the litigation.
32
 Forum does not qualify payment of
compensation
 We have not ed i n t he begi nni ng t hat t he servi ces her e wer e
render ed i n a case of an ad mi ni strati ve nat ur e. But t hat does not
al ter t he appli cati on of t he pr oper rul e:

Pr of essi onal ser vi ces, t o prepar e and advocat e j ust cl ai ms f or

co mpensati on, are as l egi ti mat e as servi ces rendered i n court i n
ar gui ng a cause t o convi nce a court or j ury t hat t he cl ai m
pr esent ed or t he def ense set up agai nst a cl ai m pr esent ed by t he
ot her party ought t o be al l owed or r ej ect ed. Parti es in such cases
requi r e advocat es; and t he l egal pr of essi on must have a ri ght
t o accept such e mpl oy ment and t o recei ve co mpensati on f or
t hei r servi ces. – De Guzma n v. Visayan Rapid Transport Co. Inc.
G.R. No. 46396 Sept e mber 30, 1939

33
W ritten contract is not req u ired to pro ve
law yer-clien t relatio n sh ip
 The absence of a written contract will not preclude the
finding that there was a professional relationship which
merits attorney's fees for professional services rendered.
Documentary formalism is not an essential element in the
employment of an attorney; the contract may be express or
implied. To establish the relation, it is sufficient that
the advice and assistance of an attorney is sought and
received in any matter pertinent to his profession. An
acceptance of the relation is implied on the part of the
attorney from his acting on behalf of his client in
pursuance of a request from the latter. - D ee vs. Court of
Appea ls , G .R . N o . 77439 , August 24 , 1989

34
O p tio n s to enfo rce rig h t to p ro fessio n al
fees

 A lawyer may enforce his right to his fees by filing the

necessary petition as an incident of the main action in
which his services were rendered or in an independent suit
against his client. The former is preferable to avoid
multiplicity of suits. - P ineda v . A tty . D e Jesus, et . a l.
G .R . N o . 155224 August 23 , 2006

35
 O n ly reaso n to file suit

 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. - Pineda v .
Atty . D e Jesus, et . a l. G .R . N o . 155224 August 23 , 2006

36
 Tw o com m o n ly accep ted co ncep ts of
atto rn ey’s fees
 In its o rd inary concep t, an a tto rney’s fee is the reasonab le
com pensatio n pa id to a law yer b y h is c lien t fo r the lega l serv ices
he has rendered to the la tte r. The basis o f th is com pensatio n is
the fact o f h is em p loym ent b y and h is ag reem ent w ith the c lient.
 In its extraord inary concep t, an a tto rney’s fee is an indem nity
fo r d am ages ord ered by the cou rt to be pa id by the losing party in
a litig a tio n . The basis o f th is is any o f the cases p rov id ed by
law w here such aw ard can be m ade , su ch as tho se au tho rized in
Artic le 2208 , C iv il Code , and is p ayab le no t to the law yer bu t to
the c lien t, u n less they have ag reed that th e aw ard sha ll p erta in to
the law yer as add itio na l com pensatio n or as part thereo f. - Traders
Royal Bank Employees Union-Independent v. NLRC G.R. No. 120592.
March 14, 1997

37
 A w ard o f (extrao rd in ary) atto rn ey’
s fee
is d iscretio n ary
 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. W hen they took their
oath, they submitted themselves to the authority of the
Court and subjected their professional fees to judicial
control. – Pineda v . A tty . D e Jesus, et . a l. G .R . N o . 155224
August 23 , 2006

38
 C ontingent fee agree m e nt d oes not violate
A rticle 1491(5) of the N C C

 The contract of services did not violate said provision of law. Article
1491 of the Civil Code, specifically paragraph 5 thereof, prohibits lawyers
from acquiring by purchase even at a public or judicial auction, properties
and rights which are the objects of litigation in which they may take part
by virtue of their profession. The said prohibition, however, applies only
if the sale or assignment of the property takes place during the pendency
of the litigation involving the client's property.
 Hence, a contract between a lawyer and his client stipulating a contingent
fee is not covered by said prohibition under Article 1491 (5) of the Civil
Code because the payment of said fee is not made during the pendency of the
litigation but only after judgment has been rendered in the case handled by
the lawyer. In fact, under the 1988 Code of Professional Responsibility, a
lawyer may have a lien over funds and property of his client and may apply
so much thereof as may be necessary to satisfy his lawful fees and
disbursements. - Fabillo and Tana v. IAC G.R. No. L-68838 [1991]

39
 Effect of withdrawal as counsel

 The attorney who withdraws with good cause is entitled to

fees, but the attorney who withdraws without good cause is
not entitled to fees.
 If an attorney is found to have violated the ethical rules, a
court may find that any claim to fees from the matter is
invalid.
 Accordingly, an attorney contemplating withdrawal must
consider whether it would be with or without cause to
determine if the client is required to pay fees because an
attorney's lien will always be invalid when the client is not
required to pay fees.
40
 Whether or not an attorney who stopped providing
legal services could recover based on a contingent
fee contract "prior to full consideration of the
contingency“.
 The court held that, "under the circumstances of this case an attorney may
not recover on the contract but must seek recovery of fees on the theory
of quantum meruit." That holding does not establish that any attorney
who withdraws from a contingent fee representation may always recover
fees in quantum meruit. Rather, it establishes that the measure of recovery
should be quantum meruit, as opposed to some portion of the contingent
contract. The court concluded, "if Ross is entitled to attorney fees, the
measure of those fees is not the contingent fee agreed upon but the
reasonable value of the services rendered.“ - Ross v. Scannell, 97 Wash. 2d
598, 647 P.2d 1004 (1982)

41
 Is the lawyer entitled to a professional fee in a
contingent fee arrangement if the client terminates the
relationship with or without cause?
 When a client agrees to pay an attorney under a contingency fee
agreement and terminates the attorney before occurrence of the
contingency, the attorney may recover based on quantum meruit. In
contrast to withdrawal, this rule applies whether the client terminates the
relationship with or without cause."

 However, there are two exceptions to this rule. First, if an attorney violates
the RPCs, then compensation is not available. Second, if the attorney
substantially performs the duties owed to the client, then the attorney may
recover the full contingency, not just quantum meruit. The substantial
performance exception only applies in the rare case where full
performance is delinquent by "minor and relatively unimportant
deviations."'

42
 M ere d em an d fo r d elivery o f th e
litig ated p ro p erty is n o t u n eth ical
 In the instant case, there was no actual acquisition of the
property in litigation since the respondent only made a
written demand for its delivery which the complainant
refused to comply. Mere demand for delivery of the litigated
property does not cause the transfer of ownership, hence,
not a prohibited transaction within the contemplation of
Article 1491. - Ramos v. Atty. Ngaseo, A.C. No. 6210 [2004]

43
 C o m m issio n /referral fees p ro h ib ited

 By openly admitting he divided the Php70,000.00 to other

individuals as commission/referral fees respondent violated
Rule 9.02, Canon 9 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility which provides that a lawyer shall not divide
or stipulate to divide a fee for legal services with persons
not licensed to practice law. - Lijauco v. Atty. Terrado,
A.C. No. 6317 [2006]

44
CANON 9 - A LAWYER SHALL NOT, DIRECTLY OR
INDIRECTLY, ASSIST IN THE UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF
LAW.

 Rule 9.02 - A lawyer shall not divide or stipulate to divide

a fee for legal services with persons not licensed to
practice law, except:
 (a) Where there is a pre-existing agreement with a partner
or associate that, upon the latter's death, money shall be
paid over a reasonable period of time to his estate or to
persons specified in the agreement; or
 (b) Where a lawyer undertakes to complete unfinished legal
business of a deceased lawyer; or
 (c) Where a lawyer or law firm includes non-lawyer employees
in a retirement plan even if the plan is based in whole or
in part, on a profit sharing agreement.

45
 Q u ality o f leg al service sh o u ld n o t vary
if ren d ered fo r free
 It is true that he is a court-appointed counsel. But we do
say that as such counsel de oficio, he has as high a duty to
the accused as one employed and paid by defendant himself.
Because, as in the case of the latter, he must exercise his
best efforts and professional ability in behalf of the
person assigned to his care. His is to render effective
assistance. The accused defendant expects of him due
diligence, not mere perfunctory representation. We do not
accept the paradox that responsibility is less where the
defended party is poor. - In Re: Atty. Adriano, G.R. No.
L-26868 [1969]

46
 Rule 14.04 - A lawyer who accepts the cause of a person
unable to pay his professional fees shall observe the same
standard of conduct governing his relations with paying
clients.

47
 C ase law

 Mr. Culpepper sent Mr. Cole a letter in which he confirmed

that he would accept the representation on a contingent fee
basis of one-third "of whatever additional property or money
we can get for you.
 After negotiation between Mr. Culpepper and counsel for the
estate of Mr. Cole's mother, Mr. Cole was offered property
worth $21,600.03 over and above what he would have received
under the terms of the decedent's will. Mr. Culpepper
thought the compromise was reasonable and recommended to Mr.
Cole that he accept the offer. However, Mr. Cole refused to
settle his claim for that amount, believing he was entitled
to a larger share of his mother's succession as a forced
heir. When Mr. Culpepper refused to file suit in the matter,
Mr. Cole terminated his representation.
48
 Pursuant to the parties' agreement, Mr. Culpepper is
entitled to one-third "of whatever additional property or
money" he obtained on behalf of Mr. Cole. It is undisputed
that Mr. Cole recovered no additional property or money as
a result of the litigation against his mother's estate.
Because Mr. Cole obtained no recovery, it follows that Mr.
Culpepper is not entitled to any contingent fee.
 Nonetheless, Mr. Culpepper urges us to find that his
contingency should attach to the settlement offer he
obtained on behalf of his client, even though his client
refused to accept that offer. According to Mr. Culpepper, he
did the work for which Mr. Cole retained him, and he is
therefore entitled to one-third of the amount offered in
settlement, notwithstanding Mr. Cole's rejection of the
settlement offer.
49
 D ecisio n

 To allow Mr. Culpepper to recover a contingent fee under

these circumstances would penalize Mr. Cole for exercising
his right to reject the settlement. We find no statutory or
jurisprudential support for such a proposition. Indeed, this
court has rejected any interpretation of the Rules of
Professional Conduct which would place restrictions on the
client's fundamental right to control the case.
 In summary, we find that Mr. Culpepper did not obtain any
recovery on behalf of Mr. Cole. In the absence of a
recovery, it follows that Mr. Culpepper cannot collect a
contingent fee for his services. - Culpepper v. Cole 929
So.2d 1224 [2006]

50
 A ccep tan ce fee is n o t n ecessary to
estab lish law yer-clien t relatio n sh ip

 A lawyer-client relationship was established from the very

first moment complainant asked respondent for legal advice
regarding the former’s business. To constitute professional
employment, it is not essential that the client employed the
attorney professionally on any previous occasion. It is not
necessary that any retainer be paid, promised, or charged;
neither is it material that the attorney consulted did not
afterward handle the case for which his service had been
sought. - Burbe v. Atty. Magulta AC No. 99-634. June 10,
2002

51
 “Money down first” policy
is unethical
 The i mpr opri et y li es i n t he f act t hat she suggest ed t hat
co mpl ai nant borr ow money fr om Do mi ngo Nat avi o f or t he
pay ment t hereof. Thi s act i mpr esses upon t he Cour t t hat
respondent woul d do not hi ng t o t he cause of compl ai nant’ s
mot her-i n-l aw unl ess pay ment of t he accept ance f ee i s made.
Her dut y t o render l egal ser vi ces t o her cli ent wi t h co mpet ence
and dili gence shoul d not depend on the pay ment of
accept ance fee. – Ceni za v. Atty. Rubi a, A. C. No. 6166, Oct ober 2,
2009

 I, do sol e mnl y s wear t hat xxx I will del ay no man f or money xxx.

52
 Estab lish m en t o f law yer-clien t
relatio n sh ip n o t in flu en ced b y p erso n al
affiliatio n
 Respondent takes further refuge in the intimate and close
relationship existing between himself and the
complainant’s family on the basis of which his legal
services were purely gratuitous or “simply an act of a
friend for a friend” with “no consideration involved.”
Unfortunately, his efforts to redeem the foreclosed
property, as already stated, did not produce the desired
result because the mortgagee “would not budge anymore” and
“would not accept the sum offered.”
 Thus, the respondent concluded that there was, strictly
speaking, no attorney-client [relationship] existing between
them. Rather, right from the start[,] everything was sort
of personal, he added. xxx This contention has no merit. -
Junio v. Atty. Grupo, A.C. No. 5020. December 18, 2001
53
 R ig h t to a lien versu s d u ty to acco u n t

 Lawyers who convert the funds entrusted to them are in gross

violation of professional ethics and are guilty of betrayal
of public confidence in the legal profession. It may be
true that they have a lien upon the client’s funds,
documents and other papers that have lawfully come into
their possession; that they may retain them until their
lawful fees and disbursements have been paid; and that they
may apply such funds to the satisfaction of such fees and
disbursements. However, these considerations do not relieve
them of their duty to promptly account for the moneys they
received. Their failure to do so constitutes professional
misconduct. In any event, they must still exert all effort
to protect their client’s interest within the bounds of
law. – Burbe v. Atty. Magulta AC No. 99-634. June 10, 2002
54
 D u ty o f acco u n tin g

 When a lawyer receives money from a client for a particular

purpose involving the client-attorney relationship, he is
bound to render an accounting to the client showing that the
money was spent for that particular purpose. If the lawyer
does not use the money for the intended purpose, he must
immediately return the money to his client. - Navarro &
Presbitero, A.C. No. 9872, January 28, 2014

55
 C h an g e o f atto rn ey

 Section 26 of Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court

provides:
 "Sec. 26. Change of attorneys -- An attorney may retire at
any time from any action or special proceeding, by the
written consent of his client filed in court. He may also
retire at any time from an action or special proceeding,
without the consent of his client, should the court, on
notice to the client and attorney, and on hearing, determine
that he ought to be allowed to retire. In case of
substitution, the name of the attorney newly employed shall
be entered on the docket of the court in place of the former
one, and written notice of the change shall be given to the
adverse party.

56
 W ith d raw al o f co u n sel

 A lawyer may retire at any time from any action or special

proceeding with the written consent of his client filed in
court and copy thereof served upon the adverse party.
Should the client refuse to give his consent, the lawyer
must file an application with the court. The court, on
notice to the client and adverse party, shall determine
whether he ought to be allowed to retire. The application
for withdrawal must be based on a good cause. - O rcino v.
Atty. Gaspar, A.C. No. 3773. September 24, 1997

57
 G ro u n d s fo r w ith d raw al

 Respondent's withdrawal was made on the ground that "there

no longer exist[ed] the xxx confidence" between them and
that there had been "serious diffferences between them
relating to the manner of private prosecution.“ - O rcino v.
Atty. Gaspar, A.C. No. 3773. September 24, 1997

58
 C o u rt ap p ro val req u ired b efo re
co u n sel can w ith d raw
 Assuming, nevertheless, that respondent was justified in
terminating his services, he, however, cannot just do so and
leave complainant in the cold unprotected. The lawyer has
no right to presume that his petition for withdrawal will be
granted by the court. Until his withdrawal shall have been
approved, the lawyer remains counsel of record who is
expected by his client as well as by the court to do what
the interests of his client require. He must still appear on
the date of hearing for the attorney-client relation does
not terminate formally until there is a withdrawal of
record. – O rcino v. Atty. Gaspar, A.C. No. 3773. September
24, 1997

59
 W h at is a co n tin g en cy co n tract
 The client and his lawyer may enter into a written contract
whereby the latter would be paid attorney’s fees only if
the suit or litigation ends favorably to the client. This
is called a contingency fee contract. The amount of
attorney’s fees in this contract may be on a percentage
basis, and a much higher compensation is allowed in
consideration of the risk that the lawyer may get nothing if
the suit fails.
 In the case at bar, the non-EPIRA separated members and
petitioner voluntarily entered into a contingency fee
contract whereby petitioner did not receive any acceptance
fee or appearance/meeting fee. - Atty. O rocio v. Angulan
et. al., G.R. No. 179892-93 [2009]

60
 W h y co n tin g en cy fee is allo w ed

 Contingent fee contracts are permitted in this jurisdiction

because they redound to the benefit of the poor client and
the lawyer “especially in cases where the client has
meritorious cause of action, but no means with which to pay
for legal services unless he can, with the sanction of law,
make a contract for a contingent fee to be paid out of the
proceeds of litigation. Oftentimes, the contingent fee
arrangement is the only means by which the poor clients can
have their rights vindicated and upheld.”- Atty. O rocio v.
Angulan et. al., G.R. No. 179892-93 [2009]

61
 Contingent fee arrangement
must be written
 It bears to stress that 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. – Felicisima Mendoza vda. De Robosa v. Atty.
Mendoza & Atty. Navarro, Jr., A.C. no. 6056, September 09, 2015

62
Lim itatio n s o f a co n tin g en cy ag reem en t

 However, in cases where contingent fees are sanctioned by

law, the same should be reasonable under all the
circumstances of the case, and should always be subject to
the supervision of a court, as to its reasonableness, such
that under Canon 20 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, a lawyer is tasked to charge only fair and
reasonable fees. - Atty. O rocio v. Angulan et. al., G.R. No.
179892-93 [2009]

63
 Contingent fee to a witness

 Witnesses should always testify truthfully and should be

free from any financial inducements that might tempt them to
do otherwise. A lawyer should not pay or agree to pay a non-
expert witness an amount in excess of reimbursement for
expenses and financial loss incident to being a witness;
 however, a lawyer may pay or agree to pay an expert witness
a reasonable fee for services as an expert. But in no
event should a lawyer pay or agree to pay a contingent fee
to any witness. – Swafford v. Harris, 967 S.W.2d 319 (1998)

64
 A champertous contract
We the [Fortunados] agree on the 50% contingent fee,
provided, you [respondent Ramon Gonzales] defray all expenses,
for the suit, including court fees.

Alfaro T. Fortunado [signed]

Editha T. Fortunado [signed]
Nestor T. Fortunado [signed]

CONFORME

Ramon A. Gonzales [signed]

65
 Champerty and Doctrine of
Maintenance
 Champerty, along with maintenance (of which champerty is an
aggravated form), is a common law doctrine that traces its origin to
the medieval period.
 The doctrine of maintenance was directed "against wanton and in
officious intermeddling in the disputes of others in which the
intermeddler has no interest whatever, and where the assistance
rendered is without justification or excuse."
 Champerty, on the other hand, is characterized by "the receipt of a
share of the proceeds of the litigation by the intermeddler." Some
common law court decisions, however, add a second factor in
determining champertous contracts, namely, that the lawyer must
also, "at his own expense maintain, and take all the risks of, the
litigation.“ - Conjugal Partnership of the Spouses Vicente Cadavedo
v. Atty. Lacaya, G.R. No. 173188, January 15, 2014
66
 Avoiding Champertous contracts

 The rule of the profession that forbids a lawyer from contracting with
his client for part of the thing in litigation in exchange for conducting
the case at the lawyer’s expense is designed to prevent the lawyer
from acquiring an interest between him and his client.
 To permit these arrangements is to enable the lawyer to "acquire
additional stake in the outcome of the action which might lead him to
consider his own recovery rather than that of his client or to accept a
settlement which might take care of his interest in the verdict to the
sacrifice of that of his client in violation of his duty of undivided
fidelity to his client’s cause. - Conjugal Partnership of the Spouses
Vicente Cadavedo v. Atty. Lacaya, G.R. No. 173188, January 15,
2014

67
 Advancing the expenses
without reimbursement
 Although a lawyer may in good faith, advance the expenses of
litigation, the same should be subject to reimbursement. The
agreement between respondent and the Fortunados, however, does
not provide for reimbursement to respondent of litigation
expenses paid by him. An agreement whereby an attorney agrees
to pay expenses of proceedings to enforce the client's rights is
champertous xxx. Such agreements are against public policy
especially where, as in this case, the attorney has agreed to carry
on the action at his own expense in consideration of some bargain
to have part of the thing in dispute xxx. The execution of these
contracts violates the fiduciary relationship between the lawyer and
his client, for which the former must incur administrative sanctions.
- Bautista v. Atty. Gonzales, A.M. No. 1625 February 12, 1990

68
 Written v. Oral Agreements

 An agreement between the lawyer and his client,

providing for the former’s compensation, is subject to the
ordinary rules governing contracts in general. As the
rules stand, controversies involving written and oral
agreements on attorney’s fees shall be resolved in
favor of the former. - Conjugal Partnership of the Spouses
Vicente Cadavedo v. Atty. Lacaya, G.R. No. 173188, January 15,
2014

69
 W ritten co n tract o f leg al fees is
o rd in arily co n tro llin g
 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 to be
unreasonable or unconscionable. If the stipulated amount
for attorney’s fees is excessive, the contract may be
disregarded even if the client expressed their conformity
thereto. Attorney’s fees are unconscionable if they affront
one’s sense of justice, decency or reasonableness, or if
they are so disproportionate to the value of the services
rendered. In such a case, courts are empowered to reduce the
attorney’s fee or fix a reasonable amount thereof taking
into consideration the surrounding circumstances and the
established parameters. - Atty. Orocio v. Angulan et. al.,
G.R. No. 179892-93 [2009] 70
 W h en is an atto rn ey’ s fees
u n co n scio n ab le?
 Attorney’s fees are unconscionable if they affront one’s
sense of justice, decency or reasonableness, or if they are
so disproportionate to the value of the services rendered.
In such a case, courts are empowered to reduce the
attorney’s fee or fix a reasonable amount thereof taking
into consideration the surrounding circumstances and the
established parameters. - Atty. Orocio v. Angulan et. al.,
G.R. No. 179892-93 [2009]

71
 Law yer’s co m p en satio n fo r p ro fessio n al
services ren d ered is su b ject to th e su p ervisio n
o f th e co u rt
 Under Section 24, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, a written
contract for services shall control the amount to be paid
therefor unless found by the court to be unconscionable or
unreasonable.
 . It follows that a lawyer’s compensation for professional
services rendered is subject to the supervision of the
court, not just to guarantee that the fees he charges and
receives remain reasonable and commensurate with the
services rendered, but also to maintain the dignity and
integrity of the legal profession to which he belongs.
Upon taking his attorney’s oath as an officer of the court,
a lawyer submits himself to the authority of the courts to
regulate his right to charge professional fees. - Atty.
Orocio v. Angulan et. al., G.R. No. 179892-93 [2009]
72
 CPR – retaining and charging lien

 Rule 16.03 - A lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of his client
when due or upon demand. However, he shall have a lien over the funds
and may apply so much thereof as may be necessary to satisfy his lawful
fees and disbursements, giving notice promptly thereafter to his client. He
shall also have a lien to the same extent on all judgments and executions
he has secured for his client as provided for in the Rules of Court.

73
 General, Retaining or Possessory lien

 Rule 138 Sec. 37. Attorney's liens. — An attorney shall have

a lien upon the funds, documents and papers of his client,
which have lawfully come into his possession and may retain
the same until his lawful fees and disbursements have been
paid, and may apply such funds to the satisfaction thereof.
xxx

74
 General Retainer Fee

 A retaining fee is a preliminary fee paid to ensure and secure a

lawyer's future services, to remunerate him for being
deprived, by being retained by one party, of the opportunity of
rendering services to the other party and of receiving pay from
him.
 In the absence of an agreement to the contrary, the retaining
fee is neither made nor received in consideration of the
services contemplated; it is apart from what the client has
agreed to pay for the services which he has retained him to
perform. - Research and Services Realty, Inc. v. CA and Fonacier, Jr., G.R.
No. 124074. January 27, 1997

75
 Features of a Retaining fee agreement

 Two basic principles come into play:

 The first is as stated earlier, viz., that the retaining fee is neither made nor
received in consideration of the services contemplated unless the contract
itself so provides.
 The second is that, unless expressly stipulated, rendition of professional
services by a lawyer is for a fee or compensation and is not gratuitous. This
is implicit from the opening clause of Section 24, Rule 138 of the Rules of
Court, which states that "[a]n attorney shall be entitled to have and recover
from his client no more than a reasonable compensation for his services . .
.," and by virtue of the innominate contract of facio ut des (I do and you
give), as enunciated by this Court… - Research and Services Realty, Inc. v.
CA and Fonacier, Jr., G.R. No. 124074. January 27, 1997

76
 Exception to the rule of not withholding
property of client
 Except only for the retaining lien exception under Rule 16.03,
Canon 16 of the Code, the lawyer should not withhold the
property of his client. Segovia-Ribaya v. Atty. Lawsin, A.C. No. 7965,
November 13, 2013

77
 Sp ecial,
p articu lar, o r C h arg in g lien
 Rule 138 Section 37. xxx He shall also have a lien to the
same extent upon all judgments for the payment of money, and
executions issued in pursuance of such judgments, which he
has secured in a litigation of his client, from and after
the time when he shall have caused a statement of his claim
of such lien to be entered upon the records of the court
rendering such judgment, or issuing such execution, and
shall have caused written notice thereof to be delivered to
his client and to the adverse party; and he shall have the
same right and power over such judgments and executions as
his client would have to enforce his lien and secure the
payment of his just fees and disbursements."

78
 Retaining lien to Charging lien

 If the funds recovered for the client come into the lawyer's
possession, the lawyer may detain the amount claimed as a fee. This
use has some similarity to a retaining lien, except that the lawyer
may keep only proceeds of the matter in which the fee is claimed,
and only the amount so claimed.

79
Suppose, however, the certificates of title belonging to a
client, come to the possession of his lawyer, but
subsequently, by virtue of a compromise agreement
judicially approved, the properties covered by these are
conveyed to other persons, is the retaining lien lost?

 It is not. The position of the lawyer in such a situation is similar to

that of a creditor who holds an attachment lien over the properties,
and the client-debtor must discharge the lien before he can
dispose the properties of a third person free of such lien. - Ampil v.
Agrava G.R. No. 27394, July 31, 1970.

80
 What if the title to the property is the very
subject of the litigation?
 A different rule obtains if the title to the property is the
very subject in, dispute in the case, and the court
determines that the client's adversary is rightfully entitled
to it. In this latter case, the title to the property could not
be said to be the properties of the client, over which the
lawyer may claim a retaining lien. - Carmelo V. Sison citing
Vda. de Caifia v. Victoriano, 105 Phil. 194 (1959)

81
Court can order the surrender of documents

 "if it be entirely indispensable for the court to gain

possession of the documents that have come to the
attorney and are held by him in the course of his
employment as counsel, it can require the surrender
thereof by requiring the client or claimant to first file
proper and adequate security for the lawyers'
compensation." – Ampil v. Hon. Juliano-Agrava, et. al., G.R. No.
L-27394 July 31, 1970

82
 Public documents not subject to
retaining lien
 The privilege of a retaining lien granted to an attorney does not
cover papers and documents which are public in character and
which have been introduced as exhibits. Such papers and
documents are properly subject to the Court’s custody. In the case
at bar, the intransigence of the petitioner in his persistence to
continue in possession of the papers and documents in question
based on his erroneous belief as to the extent of the privilege of a
retaining lien, must not be accorded the imprimatur of the approval
of this Tribunal. If such were not the law, the resulting injury to a fair
and efficient administration of justice might well prove to be
incalculable. – Villanueva, Jr. v. Hon. Judge Querubin, et. al., G.R. No. L-26137.
September 23, 1968

83
Features of an attorney's general, retaining
or possessory lien
 Retaining lien of an attorney is only a passive right and cannot be actively
enforced.
 It amounts to a mere right to retain the documents and papers as against
the client, until the attorney is fully paid, the exception being that funds of
the client in the attorney's possession may be applied to the satisfaction of
his fees.
 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.
 The attorney's retaining lien attaches to the client's documents and funds
in the attorney's possession regardless of the outcome, favorable or
adverse, of any cases he may have handled for his client. - Ampil v. Hon.
Juliano-Agrava, et. al., G.R. No. L-27394 July 31, 1970

84
Con’t….

 The retaining lien's primary use is to compel a client to pay

through embarrassment or worry.
 Attorney lien is the exception to the rule prohibiting an
attorney from attaining a proprietary interest in the cause of
action.
 Lastly, it is irrelevant whether the papers were retained in
connection with the fees in dispute. (?)

85
 Retaining lien not applicable to adverse
party’s property
 The situation would be different where title to the properties is the very
subject in dispute in the case and the court adjudges the client's adversary
to be rightfully entitled thereto. In such a case, the titles to the property
could not be said to be properties of the client, over which the attorney
may claim a retaining lien. The attorney may enforce his lien only over
properties of his client and not against those of his client's adversary. And
the adversary's right as prevailing party to enforce the judgment for the
property adjudged to him should not depend on or be prejudiced by the
client's ability or refusal to pay the attorney. - Ampil v. Hon. Juliano-Agrava, et. al.,
G.R. No. L-27394 July 31, 1970

86
Effect of withdrawal as counsel
 The attorney who withdraws with good cause is entitled to
fees, but the attorney who withdraws without good cause is
not entitled to fees.
 If an attorney is found to have violated the ethical rules, a
court may find that any claim to fees from the matter is
invalid.
 Accordingly, an attorney contemplating withdrawal must
consider whether it would be with or without cause to
determine if the client is required to pay fees because an
attorney's lien will always be invalid when the client is not
required to pay fees.
87
 The documents and money must be in the
possession of the attorney

 A side question also arose because of the lawyer's claim that

he "is from time to time also in possession of the 17 titles
belonging to the estate.“ The rule is that the retaining lien is
dependent on possession and does not attach to anything not
in the attorney's hands. It exists only so long as the attorney
retains possession of the subject matter and expires when the
possession ends. - Carmelo V. Sison citing Vda. de Caifia v. Victoriano,
105 Phil. 194 (1959)

88
Thank you for your
attention!!

89