Você está na página 1de 5

G.R. No. 155224 August 23, 2006 VINSON B. PINEDA, Petitioner, vs. ATTY. CLOD ALDO C. DE !ES S, ATTY.

CARLOS A"BROSIO #$% ATTY. E""AN EL "ARIANO, Respondents. DECISION CORONA, J.& The subject of this petition for review is the Apri !", #""# decision $ of the Court of Appe% s in CA&'.R. C( No. )*"*" which +odified the order # of the Re,ion% Tri% Court -RTC. of P%si, Cit/, 0r%nch $1$, in 2DRC C%se No. #1)* entit ed Ma. Aurora D. Pineda v. Vinson B. Pineda. The f%cts fo ow. On Apri ), $33!, Auror% Pined% fi ed %n %ction for dec %r%tion of nu it/ of +%rri%,e %,%inst petitioner (inson Pined% in the RTC of P%si, Cit/, 0r%nch $1$, doc4eted %s 2DRC C%se No. #1)*. Petitioner w%s represented b/ respondents Att/s. C odu% do de 2esus, C%r os A+brosio %nd E++%nue 5%ri%no. Durin, the pendenc/ of the c%se, Auror% proposed % sett e+ent to petitioner re,%rdin, her visit%tion ri,hts over their +inor chi d %nd the sep%r%tion of their properties. The propos% w%s %ccepted b/ petitioner %nd both p%rties subse6uent / fi ed % +otion for %pprov% of their %,ree+ent. This w%s %pproved b/ the tri% court. On Nove+ber #1, $33*, the +%rri%,e between petitioner %nd Auror% Pined% w%s dec %red nu %nd void. Throu,hout the proceedin,s, respondent counse s were we &co+pens%ted. ! The/, inc udin, their re %tives %nd friends, even %v%i ed of free products %nd tre%t+ents fro+ petitioner7s der+%to o,/ c inic. This notwithst%ndin,, the/ bi ed petitioner additional e,% fees %+ountin, to P$).1 +i ion8 which the %tter, however, refused to p%/. Inste%d, petitioner issued the+ sever% chec4s tot% in, P$.$# +i ion1 %s 9fu p%/+ent for sett e+ent.9) Sti not s%tisfied, respondents fi ed in the s%+e tri% court : % +otion for p%/+ent of %w/ers7 fees for P1" +i ion.* On Apri $8, #""", the tri% court ordered petitioner to p%/ P1 +i ion to Att/. de 2esus, P# +i ion to Att/. A+brosio %nd P# +i ion to Att/. 5%ri%no. On %ppe% , the Court of Appe% s reduced the %+ount %s fo ows; P$ +i ion to Att/. de 2esus, P1"",""" to Att/. A+brosio %nd P1"",""" to Att/. 5%ri%no. The +otion for reconsider%tion w%s denied. <ence, this recourse.

The issues r%ised in this petition %re; -$. whether the P%si, RTC, 0r%nch $1$ h%d jurisdiction over the c %i+ for %ddition% e,% fees %nd -#. whether respondents were entit ed to %ddition% e,% fees. First, % %w/er +%/ enforce his ri,ht to his fees b/ fi in, the necess%r/ petition %s %n incident of the +%in %ction in which his services were rendered or in %n independent suit %,%inst his c ient. The for+er is prefer%b e to %void +u tip icit/ of suits. 3 The P%si, RTC, 0r%nch $1$, where the c%se for the dec %r%tion of nu it/ of +%rri%,e w%s fi ed, h%d jurisdiction over the +otion for the p%/+ent of e,% fees. Respondents sou,ht to co ect P1" +i ion which w%s e6uiv% ent to $"= of the v% ue of the properties %w%rded to petitioner in th%t c%se. C e%r /, wh%t respondents were de+%ndin, w%s %ddition% p%/+ent for e,% services rendered in the same case. Second, the profession% en,%,e+ent between petitioner %nd respondents w%s ,overned b/ the princip e ofquantum meruit which +e%ns 9%s +uch %s the %w/er deserves.9$" The recover/ of %ttorne/7s fees on this b%sis is per+itted, %s in this c%se, where there is no e>press %,ree+ent for the p%/+ent of %ttorne/7s fees. 0%sic% /, it is % e,% +ech%nis+ which prevents %n unscrupu ous c ient fro+ runnin, %w%/ with the fruits of the e,% services of counse without p%/in, for it. In the s%+e vein, it %voids unjust enrich+ent on the p%rt of the %w/er hi+se f. ?urther, Ru e #".8 of the Code of Profession% Responsibi it/ %dvises %w/ers to %void controversies with c ients concernin, their co+pens%tion %nd to resort to judici% %ction on / to prevent i+position, injustice or fr%ud. Suits to co ect fees shou d be %voided %nd shou d be fi ed on / when circu+st%nces force %w/ers to resort to it. $$ In the c%se %t b%r, respondents7 +otion for p%/+ent of their %w/ers7 fees w%s not +e%nt to co ect wh%t w%s just / due the+@ the f%ct w%s, the/ h%d % re%d/ been %de6u%te / p%id. De+%ndin, P1" +i ion on top of the ,enerous su+s %nd per4s % re%d/ ,iven to the+ w%s %n %ct of unconscion%b e ,reed which is shoc4in, to this Court. As %w/ers, respondents shou d be re+inded th%t the/ %re +e+bers of %n honor%b e profession, the pri+%r/ vision of which is justice. It is respondents7 despic%b e beh%vior which ,ives %w/erin, % b%d n%+e in the +inds of so+e peop e. The vern%cu %r h%s % word for it; nagsasamantala. The pr%ctice of %w is % decent profession %nd not % +one/&+%4in, tr%de. Co+pens%tion shou d be but % +ere incident. $# Respondents7 c %i+ for %ddition% e,% fees w%s not justified. The/ cou d not ch%r,e petitioner % fee b%sed on percent%,e, %bsent %n e>press %,ree+ent to th%t effect. The p%/+ents to the+ in c%sh, chec4s, free products %nd services fro+ petitioner7s business

A % of which were not denied b/ respondents A +ore th%n sufficed for the wor4 the/ did. The 9fu p%/+ent for sett e+ent9 $! shou d h%ve disch%r,ed petitioner7s ob i,%tion to the+. The power of this Court to reduce or even de ete the %w%rd of %ttorne/s7 fees c%nnot be denied. B%w/ers %re officers of the Court %nd the/ p%rticip%te in the fund%+ent% function of %d+inisterin, justice.$8 Chen the/ too4 their o%th, the/ sub+itted the+se ves to the %uthorit/ of the Court %nd subjected their profession% fees to judici% contro . $1 '(ERE)ORE, the petition is hereb/ PARTIALLY GRANTED. The decision of the Court of Appe% s d%ted Apri !", #""# in CAD'.R. C( No. )*"*" is hereb/ "ODI)IED. The %w%rd of %ddition% %ttorne/7s fees in f%vor of respondents is hereb/ DELETED. SO ORDERED. RENATO C. CORONA Associ%te 2ustice CE CONCER; REYNATO S. P NO Associ%te 2ustice Ch%irperson ANGELINA SANDOVAL*G TIERRE+, ADOL)O S. A+C NA Associ%te 2ustice Associ%te 2ustice CANCIO C. GARCIA Associ%te 2ustice ATTESTATION I %ttest th%t the conc usions in the %bove Decision h%d been re%ched in consu t%tion before the c%se w%s %ssi,ned to the writer of the opinion of the Court7s Division. REYNATO S. P NO Associ%te 2ustice Ch%irperson, Second Division CERTI?ICATION

Pursu%nt to Section $!, Artic e (III of the Constitution, %nd the Division Ch%irperson7s Attest%tion, I certif/ th%t the conc usions in the %bove decision h%d been re%ched in consu t%tion before the c%se w%s %ssi,ned to the writer of the opinion of the Court7s Division. ARTE"IO V. PANGANIBAN Chief 2ustice

)oot$ot,s Penned b/ Associ%te 2ustice A+e it% '. To entino %nd concurred in b/ Associ%te 2ustices Ruben T. Re/es -now Presidin, 2ustice of the Court of Appe% s. %nd Ren%to C. D%cud%o of the Ei,hth Division of the Court of Appe% s, rollo, pp. 8*&1:.
$

Penned b/ Actin, Presidin, 2ud,e Rodo fo R. 0onif%cio of the Re,ion% Tri% Court of P%si, Cit/, 0r%nch $1$, rollo, pp. 33&$"#.
#

5onth / fees %nd other e>penses which respondents c %i+ed to be incident% to the c%se %ppro>i+%tedP1,*1!,"1*.:1, rollo, p. $).
!

P$#.1 +i ion to Att/. de 2esus@ P# +i ion to Att/. A+brosio %nd P# +i ion to Att/. 5%ri%no.
8 1

P%/+ents in chec4; %.. To Att/. de 2esus P1"",""" on Dece+ber $*, $33*

P1"",""" on 2%nu%r/ #1, $333 b.. To Att/. 5%ri%no P!",""" on Dece+ber #", $33* c.. To Att/. A+brosio P#",""" on Dece+ber $$, $33* P!",""" on Dece+ber $*, $33* P#",""" on Dece+ber ##, $33* P#",""" on 2%nu%r/ 8, $333 Per su++%r/ of fees prep%red b/ petitioner %nd which w%s not disputed b/ respondents.
) :

RTC of P%si,, 0r%nch $1$.

Representin, $"= of the v% ue of the properties ,r%nted to petitioner in the c%se for dec %r%tion of
*

nu it/ of +%rri%,e. A,p% o, Be,% %nd 2udici% Ethics, Seventh Edition -#""#., Re> 0oo4store, Inc., p. 8$", citin, Palanca v. Pecson, 38 Phi . 8$3 -$318..
3 $"

Id., p. !31.

Id., p. 8"*, citin, the Co++ents of I0P Co++ittee th%t dr%fted the Code, p. $$#.
$$ $#

Malecdan v. Pekas, A.C. No. 1*!", #) 2%nu%r/ #""8, 8#$ SCRA :. In the %+ount of P$.# +i ion.

$!

Sesbreno v. Court o A!!eals, !$8 Phi . **8 -$331., citin, Sumaoang v. "udge, #$C, Br. %%%&, 'uimba, (ueva )ci*a, '.R. No. :*$:!, #) October $33#, #$1 SCRA $!).
$8

$aganas v. (ational +abor #elations Commission , '.R. No. $$*:8), : Septe+ber $331, #8* SCRA $!!.
$1

Você também pode gostar