Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

This case has been cited 2 times or more.

	GR NO. 152072 2006-01-31	ROMEO G. ROXAS v. ANTONIO DE ZUZUARREGUI CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
[51] Adm. Cases Nos. 1437 and 1683, 25 April 1989.
	AC. No. 6289 2004-12-16	JULIAN MALONSO v. ATTY. PETE PRINCIPE TINGA, J,
The fact that the contract stipulates a maximum of forty percent (40%) contingent fees does not make the contract illegal or unacceptable. Contingent fees are not per se prohibited by law. Its validity depends, in large measure, upon the reasonableness of the amount fixed as contingent fee under the circumstances of the case.[38] Nevertheless, when it is shown that a contract for a contingent fee was obtained by undue influence exercised by the attorney upon his client or by any fraud or imposition, or that the compensation is clearly excessive, the Court must, and will protect the aggrieved party.[39]