Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

JOSE MAX S. ORTIZ v. SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	AC. No. 10912 2016-01-19	PAULINA T. YU v. ATTY. BERLIN R. DELA CRUZ PER CURIAM
There is a distinction between attorney's fee and acceptance fee. It is well-settled that attorney's fee is understood both in its ordinary and extraordinary concept.[33] In its ordinary sense, attorney's fee refers to the reasonable compensation paid to a lawyer by his client for legal services rendered. Meanwhile, in its extraordinary concept, attorney's fee is awarded by the court to the successful litigant to be paid by the losing party as indemnity for damages.[34] On the other hand, acceptance fee refers to the charge imposed by the lawyer for merely accepting the case. This is because once the lawyer agrees to represent a client, he is precluded from handling cases of the opposing party based on the prohibition on conflict of interest. Thus, this incurs an opportunity cost by merely accepting the case of the client which is therefore indemnified by the payment of acceptance fee. Since the acceptance fee only seeks to compensate the lawyer for the lost opportunity, it is not measured by the nature and extent of the legal services rendered.[35]
	AC. No. 5067 2015-06-29	CORAZON M. DALUPAN v. ATTY. GLENN C. GACOTT VILLARAMA, JR., J.
It is well-settled that attorney's fee is understood both in its ordinary and extraordinary concept.[11] In its ordinary sense, attorney's fee refers to the reasonable compensation paid to a lawyer by his client for legal services rendered. Meanwhile, in its extraordinary concept, attorney's fee is awarded by the court to the successful litigant to be paid by the losing party as indemnity for damages.[12] In the present case, the Investigating Commissioner referred to the attorney's fee in its ordinary concept.
	GR No. 191470 2015-01-26	AUGUSTO M. AQUINO v. ISMAEL P. CASABAR PERALTA, J.
In the case of Rosario, Jr. v. De Guzman,[9] the Court clarified a similar issue and discussed the two concepts of attorney's fees that is, ordinary and extraordinary. In its ordinary sense, it is the reasonable compensation paid to a lawyer by his client for legal services rendered. In its extraordinary concept, it is awarded by the court to the successful litigant to be paid by the losing party as indemnity for damages.[10] Although both concepts are similar in some respects, they differ from each other, as further explained below: The attorney's fees which a court may, in proper cases, award to a winning litigant is, strictly speaking, an item of damages. It differs from that which a client pays his counsel for the latter's professional services. However, the two concepts have many things in common that a treatment of the subject is necessary. The award that the court may grant to a successful party by way of attorney's fee is an indemnity for damages sustained by him in prosecuting or defending, through counsel, his cause in court. It may be decreed in favor of the party, not his lawyer, in any of the instances authorized by law. On the other hand, the attorney's fee which a client pays his counsel refers to the compensation for the latter's services. The losing party against whom damages by way of attorney's fees may be assessed is not bound by, nor is his liability dependent upon, the fee arrangement of the prevailing party with his lawyer. The amount stipulated in such fee arrangement may, however, be taken into account by the court in fixing the amount of counsel fees as an element of damages.
	GR No. 191247 2013-07-10	FRANCISCO L. ROSARIO v. LELLANI DE GUZMAN MENDOZA, J.
In order to resolve the issues in this case, it is necessary to discuss the two concepts of attorney's fees ordinary and extraordinary. In its ordinary sense, it is the reasonable compensation paid to a lawyer by his client for legal services rendered. In its extraordinary concept, it is awarded by the court to the successful litigant to be paid by the losing party as indemnity for damages.[13] Although both concepts are similar in some respects, they differ from each other, as further explained below: The attorney's fee which a court may, in proper cases, award to a winning litigant is, strictly speaking, an item of damages. It differs from that which a client pays his counsel for the latter's professional services. However, the two concepts have many things in common that a treatment of the subject is necessary. The award that the court may grant to a successful party by way of attorney's fee is an indemnity for damages sustained by him in prosecuting or defending, through counsel, his cause in court. It may be decreed in favor of the party, not his lawyer, in any of the instances authorized by law. On the other hand, the attorney's fee which a client pays his counsel refers to the compensation for the latter's services. The losing party against whom damages by way of attorney's fees may be assessed is not bound by, nor is his liability dependent upon, the fee arrangement of the prevailing party with his lawyer. The amount stipulated in such fee arrangement may, however, be taken into account by the court in fixing the amount of counsel fees as an element of damages.
	GR No. 173297 2013-03-06	STRONGHOLD INSURANCE COMPANY v. TOMAS CUENCA BERSAMIN, J.
The purposes of the requirement for the real party in interest prosecuting or defending an action at law are: (a) to prevent the prosecution of actions by persons without any right, title or interest in the case; (b) to require that the actual party entitled to legal relief be the one to prosecute the action; (c) to avoid a multiplicity of suits; and (d) to discourage litigation and keep it within certain bounds, pursuant to sound public policy.[33] Indeed, considering that all civil actions must be based on a cause of action,[34] defined as the act or omission by which a party violates the right of another,[35] the former as the defendant must be allowed to insist upon being opposed by the real party in interest so that he is protected from further suits regarding the same claim.[36] Under this rationale, the requirement benefits the defendant because "the defendant can insist upon a plaintiff who will afford him a setup providing good res judicata protection if the struggle is carried through on the merits to the end."[37]
	GR No. 174179 2011-11-16	KAISAHAN AT KAPATIRAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA AT KAWANI SA MWC-EAST ZONE UNION v. MANILA WATER COMPANY BRION, J.
We similarly so ruled in RTG Construction, Inc. v. Facto[37]and in Ortiz v. San Miguel Corporation.[38] In RTG Construction, we specifically stated: Settled is the rule that in actions for recovery of wages, or where an employee was forced to litigate and, thus, incur expenses to protect his rights and interests, a monetary award by way of attorney's fees is justifiable under Article 111 of the Labor Code; Section 8, Rule VIII, Book III of its Implementing Rules; and paragraph 7, Article 2208 of the Civil Code. The award of attorney's fees is proper, and there need not be any showing that the employer acted maliciously or in bad faith when it withheld the wages. There need only be a showing that the lawful wages were not paid accordingly.[39] (emphasis ours)