This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2015-09-09 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| 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.[33] The validity of contingent fees depends, in large measure, upon the reasonableness of the amount fixed as contingent fee under the circumstances of the case.[34] 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.[35] | |||||
|
2013-07-29 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| We take note of the respondents' misgivings on the claims of Atty. Principe. However, we point out that the Court has resolved the issue of Atty. Principe's interest in the expropriation proceedings in Malonso v. Principe.[20] Julian Malonso is the owner of one of the expropriated properties and a member of SANDAMA.[21] He assailed the authority of Atty. Principe to represent him in the same expropriation proceedings that is the subject of the present case and the latter's claim of 40% of the amount to be paid by Napocor. On the basis of these contentions, he sought Atty. Principe's disbarment. | |||||
|
2008-06-17 |
YNARES-SATIAGO, J. |
||||
| WHEN IT ANNULLED AND SET ASIDE A FINAL AND EXECUTED ORDER/RESOLUTION OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION.[15] A corporation has a personality distinct and separate from its individual stockholders or members and from that of its officers who manage and run its affairs. The rule is that obligations incurred by the corporation, acting through its directors, officers and employees, are its sole liabilities. Thus, property belonging to a corporation cannot be attached to satisfy the debt of a stockholder and vice versa, the latter having only an indirect interest in the assets and business of the former.[16] | |||||