Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ATTY. VICTORIANO V. OROCIO v. EDMUND P. ANGULUAN

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 194814 2015-10-21	ROSARIO ENRIQUEZ VDA. DE SANTIAGO v. ATTY. JOSE A. SUING LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
In Roxas v. De Zuzuarregui, Jr.,[60] the Court stressed that attorney's fees are unconscionable if the amount constituting the same affront one's sense of justice, decency or reasonableness. Verily, the 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. On this note, the principle of quantum meruit (as much as he deserves) may serve as a basis for determining the reasonable amount of attorney's fees. Quantum meruit is a device to prevent undue enrichment based on the equitable postulate that it is unjust for a person to retain benefit without paying for it. The same is applicable even if there is a formal written contract for attorney's fees as long as the agreed fee was found by the court to be unconscionable.[61]
	GR No. 195374 2014-03-10	PEDRO LUKANG v. PAGBILAO DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION MENDOZA, J.
A writ of preliminary injunction is a provisional remedy which is adjunct to a main suit, as well as a preservative remedy issued to maintain the status quo of the things subject of the action or the relations between the parties during the pendency of the suit.[34] The purpose of injunction is to prevent threatened or continuous irremediable injury to the parties before their claims can be thoroughly studied and educated. Its sole aim is to preserve the status quo until the merits of the case are fully heard.[35] Under Section 3, Rule 58 of the Rules of Court, an application for a writ of preliminary injunction may be granted if the following grounds are established: (a) That the applicant is entitled to the relief demanded, and the whole or part of such relief consists in restraining the commission or continuance of the act or acts complained of, or in requiring the performance of an act or acts, either for a limited period or perpetually; (b) That the commission, continuance or non-performance of the act or acts complained of during the litigation would probably work injustice to the applicant; or (c) That a party, court, agency or a person is doing, threatening, or is attempting to do, or is procuring or suffering to be done, some act or acts probably in violation of the rights of the applicant respecting the subject of the action or proceeding, and tending to render the judgment ineffectual.
	GR No. 167239 2010-05-05	HICOBLINO M. CATLY v. WILLIAM NAVARRO PERALTA, J.
The principle of quantum meruit (as much as he deserves) may be a basis for determining the reasonable amount of attorney's fees. Quantum meruit is a device to prevent undue enrichment based on the equitable postulate that it is unjust for a person to retain benefit without paying for it. It is applicable even if there was a formal written contract for attorney's fees as long as the agreed fee was found by the court to be unconscionable. In fixing a reasonable compensation for the services rendered by a lawyer on the basis of quantum meruit, factors such as the time spent, and extent of services rendered; novelty and difficulty of the questions involved; importance of the subject matter; skill demanded; probability of losing other employment as a result of acceptance of the proferred case; customary charges for similar services; amount involved in the controversy and the benefits resulting to the client; certainty of compensation; character of employment; and professional standing of the lawyer, may be considered.[57] Indubitably entwined with a lawyer's duty to charge only reasonable fee is the power of the Court to reduce the amount of attorney's fees if the same is excessive and unconscionable in relation to Sec. 24, Rule 138 of the Rules. Attorney's fees are unconscionable if they affront one's sense of justice, decency or unreasonableness.[58]
	GR No. 164886 2009-11-24	JOSE FELICIANO LOY v. SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION EMPLOYEES UNION-PHILIPPINE TRANSPORT DEL CASTILLO, J.
The imposition of any interest, as prayed for in this instant petition, on any amount payable to petitioners is, however, unwarranted. Contracts for attorney's services are unlike any other contracts for the payment of compensation for any other services which allow the imposition of interest in case of delay under the provisions of the Civil Code.[52] The practice of law is a profession, not a moneymaking venture.[53]