Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

COMPANIA MARITIMA v. CA

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 175960 2008-02-19	PADILLA MACHINE SHOP v. Petitioners YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
Finally, there is no merit in petitioners' claim that attorney's fees may not be awarded to the respondent since his case was being handled pro bono by the U.P. Office of Legal Aid, which provides free legal assistance to indigent litigants. In this jurisdiction, there are two concepts of attorney's fees. In the ordinary sense, attorney's fees represent the reasonable compensation paid to a lawyer by his client for the legal services he has rendered to the latter. On the other hand, in its extraordinary concept, attorney's fees may be awarded by the court as indemnity for damages to be paid by the losing party to the prevailing party,[15] and not counsel. In its extraordinary sense, attorney's fees as part of damages is awarded only in the instances specified in Article 2208 of the Civil Code,[16] among which are the following which obtain in the instant case:(7) In actions for the recovery of wages of household helpers, laborers and skilled workers;
	AC. No. 5039 2005-11-25	SPS. EDUARDO AND TERESITA GARCIA v. ATTY. ROLANDO S. BALA PANGANIBAN, J.
Quantum meruit -- meaning "as much as he deserves" -- is used as basis for determining a lawyer's professional fees in the absence of a contract.[33] Lawyers must be able to show that they are entitled to reasonable compensation for their efforts in pursuing their clients' case, taking into account certain factors in fixing the amount of legal fees.[34] Based on the circumstances of the present case, the legal services actually rendered by respondent were too insignificant for remuneration because of the uselessness of the remedy he took.
	GR No. 140023 2003-08-14	RUDY LAO v. STANDARD INSURANCE CO. QUISUMBING, J.
Petitioner also assails the credence given by the trial court to the version of the respondents vis-à-vis the testimonies of the witnesses. Time and again we have reiterated the settled doctrine that great weight, and even finality, is given to the factual conclusions of the Court of Appeals which affirm those of the trial courts.[23] We find on this score no reason to overturn such conclusions.