RAUL SESBREO vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, G.R. No. 117438, 8 June 1 !

Private Respondents are 52 employees of the Province of Cebu who filed a labor suit for reinstatement and back wages. The employees contracted the services of petitioner as counsel. 32 of the 52 employees signed two documents whereby the former agreed to pay petitioner 3 ! as attorney"s fees and 2 ! as e#penses to be taken from their back salaries. $oon% the trial court decided in favour of the employees and ordered both reinstatement and back wages. The C& and $C affirmed the trial court. Thereafter% the Province of Cebu entered into a compromise agreement with the employees. Pursuant to the compromise% the employees waived their right to reinstatement in e#change for P 2%3 % as 'Partial $atisfaction of (udgment.' The amount represented back salaries% terminal leave pay and gratuity pay due to the employees. The employees entrusted the amount to petitioner. 3 of 52 employees filed a manifestation before the trial court that they agreed to pay petitioner ) ! of their back wages. The lower court ordered petitioner to release portions of the P 2%3 % while retaining ) ! from back wages and other benefits% plus 2 ! for trial e#pense. *ut the respondents moved for reconsideration because they inadvertently placed ) ! instead of 3 ! of the back wages. The trial court granted the motion for reconsideration and reduce retainer+s lien to 3 !. Petitioner appealed to the C& claiming additional fees but the C& instead reduced the 3 ! of the back wages to 2 !. "SSUE# $%e&%e' &%e Cou'& o( A))e*+s %*, &%e *u&%o'-&. &o 'e,u/e &%e *0oun& o( *&&o'ne.1s (ees *2*',e, &o )e&-&-one' A&&.. R*u+ H. Ses3'e4o, no&2-&%s&*n,-n5 &%e /on&'*/& (o' )'o(ess-on*+ se'v-/es s-5ne, 3. )'-v*&e 'es)on,en&s. 6ES. PET"T"ON 7EN"E7. CA AFF"R8E7. Contingent fee contracts are under the supervision and close scrutiny of the court in order that clients may be protected from un,ust charges. -hen a lawyer takes his oath% he submits himself to the authority of the court and sub,ects his professional fees to ,udicial control. & lawyer"s compensation for professional services rendered are sub,ect to the supervision of the court% not ,ust to guarantee that the fees he charges and receives remain reasonable and commensurate with the services rendered% but also to maintain the dignity and integrity of the legal profession to which he belongs. -hen the courts find that the stipulated amount is e#cessive or the contract is unreasonable or unconscionable% or found to have been marred by fraud% mistake% undue influence or suppression of facts on the part of the attorney% public policy demands that said contract be disregarded to protect the client from unreasonable e#action. $tipulated attorney"s fees are unconscionable whenever the amount of the fee contracted for% standing alone and une#plained would be sufficient to show that an unfair advantage had been taken of the client% or that a legal fraud had been perpetrated on him. Thus% .uantum meruit applies. /uantum meruit% meaning 'as much as he deserves%' is used as the basis for determining the lawyer"s professional fees in the absence of a contract. 0actors such as the time spent and e#tent of services rendered1 novelty and difficulty of the .uestions involved1 importance of the sub,ect matter1 skill demanded1 probability of losing other employment as a result of acceptance of the proffered case1 customary charges for similar services1 amount involved in the controversy and the benefits resulting to the client1 certainty of compensation1 character of employment1 and professional standing of the lawyer% are considered in determining his fees. Considering that this is a labor case% the amount recovered and petitioner"s participation in the case% an award of 5 ! of back salaries of his 52 clients indeed strikes us as e#cessive. The 52 employees who are the plaintiffs in the aforementioned civil case were dismissed from employment% their means of livelihood. &ll 52 hired claimant2appellant as counsel so that they could be reinstated and their source of income restored. 3t would% verily be ironic if the counsel whom they had hired to help would appropriate for himself 5 ! or even 4 ! of the total amount collectible by these employees.