This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2010-05-05 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Clearly, in G.R. No. 127079, the Court ordered the trial court to resolve the issue of whether petitioner should be entitled to the entire amount of P30,000,000.00 (the sum of P10,000,000.00 was already received by the petitioner, plus the claim of the additional amount of P20,000,000.00). This directive necessarily requires the duty of the trial court (through Judge Raul Bautista Villanueva) to determine the appropriate amount of additional attorney's fees to be awarded to petitioner, whether it should be the entire amount of P20,000,000.00 (as claimed by petitioner) or a reduced amount (as claimed by respondent ALI). If to the mind of the trial court, despite the Separate Judgment dated July 22, 1997 (per Judge Florentino M. Alumbres) directing respondent ALI to release the amount of P20,000,000.00 as additional attorney's fees of petitioner, the said amount appears to be unreasonable, then it should have forthwith conducted a hearing with dispatch to resolve the issue of the reasonable amount of attorney's fees on quantum meruit basis and, accordingly, modify the said Separate Judgment dated July 22, 1997 to be incorporated in the Decision dated December 1, 2004. This is in consonance with the ruling in Roldan v. Court of Appeals[56] which states: As a basic premise, the contention of petitioners that this Court may alter, modify or change even an admittedly valid stipulation between the parties regarding attorney's fees is conceded. The high standards of the legal profession as prescribed by law and the Canons of Professional Ethics regulate if not limit the lawyer's freedom in fixing his professional fees. The moment he takes his oath, ready to undertake his duties first, as a practitioner in the exercise of his profession, and second, as an officer of the court in the administration of justice, the lawyer submits himself to the authority of the court. 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 (Panay Electric Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 119 SCRA 456 [1982]; De Santos v. City of Manila, 45 SCRA 409 [1972]; Rolando v. Luz, 34 SCRA 337 [1970]; Cruz v. Court of Industrial Relations, 8 SCRA 826 [1963]). And this Court has consistently ruled that even with the presence of an agreement between the parties, the court may nevertheless reduce attorney's fees though fixed in the contract when the amount thereof appears to be unconscionable or unreasonable (Borcena v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 147 SCRA 111 [1987]; Mutual Paper Inc. v. Eastern Scott Paper Co., 110 SCRA 481 [1981]; Gorospe v. Gochango, 106 Phil. 425 [1959]; Turner v. Casabar, 65 Phil. 490 [1938]; F.M. Yap Tico & Co. v. Alejano, 53 Phil. 986 [1929]). For the law recognizes the validity of stipulations included in documents such as negotiable instruments and mortgages with respect to attorney's fees in the form of penalty provided that they are not unreasonable or unconscionable (Philippine Engineering Co. vs. Green, 48 Phil. 466). (Italics supplied) | |||||
|
2005-04-22 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| Respondent insists that he is entitled to attorney's fees since he gave legal advice and opinions to complainant on her problems and those of her family. Just like any other professional, a lawyer is entitled to collect fees for his services. However, he should charge only a reasonable amount of fees. Canon 20 of the Code of Professional Responsibility mandates that "A lawyer shall charge only fair and reasonable fees." There is, however, no hard and fast rule which will serve as guide in determining what is or what is not a reasonable fee. That must be determined from the facts of each case.[5] The power to determine the reasonableness or the unconscionable character of a lawyer's fee is a matter falling within the regulatory prerogative of the Court.[6] | |||||