|


÷
 


   

 
    

  

    
    



 
 Sharing or Division of Attorney͛s
Fees, When Allowed
¢ When there is only one counsel, no problem
in the division.

¢ Two or more lawyers are engaged:

GENERAL RULE: without any express
agreement on how much each will receive ʹ
they will share equally
 0xceptions:
1. Specific contracts provide for the payment of
the fees of each lawyer.

2. Lawyers were engaged at different stages of

the case, and there are no specific contracts
executed.
- lawyer who bore brunt of the prosecution of the
case to its successful end, is entitled to full
amount of fees.
 ualberto Cruz vs CIR (8 SCRA
826)
 
:
¢ ·etitioner bore the brunt of the prosecution
of the employees͛ claim to its successful end.
¢ ·etitioner attended daily hearings, presented
witnesses, filed various pleadings and
conducted the appeal.
 Similar Ruling
·

vs Ca, G.R. No. 117422
Appellant testified that her former lawyer, A. · o Lau
  af   f
 of
  app
a o fo pa
. Hence, during the pendency thereof, Atty. Laurel
should therefore be credited the commencement of appellants claim.  was a  s
u a
sa a app


s s v  s w  u
  o s su ssfu
o
p
 o 
  v va
of  op   of app

as 
a
. Needless to say, app


s a
 of
app

a
s 
a

a  
os a osa o

u a o a  a
s w 
fo  a  s
  U. S. D pa
 of Labo a Co  a
sua . Ev 
a  a app

a
 o
 a s 
 a  fo app

as as a a
was w  Da. A
 s-Mo s  pos  o was a ,  sa
was v 
a  a
as
 sab
s   va
  of app

as 
a
. The degree and extent of service
rendered by an attorney for a client is best measured in terms other than mere
number of sheets of paper. A lawyer is entitled to have and receive the just and
reasonable compensation for services rendered.
 ·rofessional Breakup
Amalgamated Laborers͛ Association vs CIR,
.R. No. L-23467

FACTS:

¢ Several workers along with their union lodged a complaint for UL· against their
employer, Binalbagan Sugar Central Company and its officers.

¢ Atty. Fernandez filed a ͞Notice of Attorney͛s Lien.͟ He alleged that he had been the
attorney of record for the laborers since the inception of preliminary hearings up to the
Supreme Court. As chief counsel, he ͞had actually rendered legal services to the laborers
who are subject of this present litigation͟; that the laborers ͞have voluntarily agreed to
give [him], representing his attorney͛s fees on contingent basis such amounts equivalent
to 30% of whatever money claims may be adjudicated to his clients.
¢ It was however reduced to 25%, for the reason that they have to share and satisfy also
Atty. Jose Ur. Carbonell in the equivalent amount of Five ·er Cent (5%) although the latter͛s
actual services rendered was so insignificant.

¢ Atty. Carbonell filed in court a document labelled ͞Discharge͟ informing CIR of the
discharge, release and dismissal Ͷ thru a union board resolution of Atty. Fernandez as one
of the lawyers of the complainants.

¢ Atty. Fernandez averred that the grounds for his discharge specified in the board resolution
were ͞malicious and motivated by greed and ungratefulness͟ and that the unjustifiable
discharge did not affect the already stipulated contract for attorneys͛ fees.

¢ CIR awarded 25% attorneys͛ fees to respondent Atty. Fernandez. CIR noted that ͞the active
conduct and prosecution of the above-entitled case was done by Atty. Fernandez up to the
appeal in the Supreme Court,͟ and that petitioner Atty. Carbonell manifested that ͞Atty.
Leonardo C. Fernandez was the counsel mainly responsible for the conduct of the case.͟
It noted, too, that petitioner Atty. Carbonell did not file any notice of Attorney͛s Lien.
RULIN:

¢ The parties herein join hands in one point Ͷ the ten (10) successful complainants
should pay as attorneys͛ fees 30% of the amount adjudicated by the court in the latter͛s
favor.

¢ They are at odds, however, on how to split the fees.

¢ An examination of the record of this case will readily show that an award of twenty-
five per cent (25%) attorneys͛ fees reasonably compensates the whole of the legal
services rendered.

¢ This fee must be shared by petitioner Atty. Carbonell and respondent Atty. Fernandez.
For, after all, they are the counsel of record of the complainants. Respondent Atty.
Fernandez cannot deny this fact. The pleadings filed even at the early stages of the
proceedings reveal the existence of an association between said attorneys. The
pleadings were filed under the name of ͞Fernandez & Carbonell.͟ This imports a
common effort of the two. It cannot be denied though that most of those pleadings up
to judgment were signed for Fernandez & Carbonell by respondent Fernandez.
¢ We note that a break-up in the professional tie-up between Attorneys Fernandez and
Carbonell began when petitioner Atty. Carbonell, complained to CIR that respondent
Atty. Fernandez ͞failed to communicate with him nor to inform him about the incidents
of this case.͟

·RINCI·L0: When two or more lawyers representing a common client have a

professional breakup during the pendency of the case, their attorney͛s fees shall be
shared in amounts to be determined by the court.
 Law -R f a
Ss

Law - f a
U Another counsel referred to the client, latter agrees to take him as
collaborating counsel.

l if there is no express agreement on payment of attorney͛s fees:

U he will receive attorney͛s fees in proportion to the work performed and

responsibility assumed.

proportion ʹ to be agreed upon by the parties.

- if there is no agreement, court will fix proportional division.
A lawyer is entitled to attorney͛s fee by reason of
his employment or for services performed for the
client.

Therefore, it is improper for him to receive any compensation

for merely recommending another lawyer to his client and
render no legal service at all in the pursuit or defense of the
client͛s case.
 üay a non-lawyer recover attorney͛s
fees for legal services rendered?
No, attorney͛s fees cannot be shared to a non-lawyer. It is immoral.

Amalgamated vs CIR

·etitioners contend that a verbal agreement was entered into by the union and its
officers thru its ·resident Javier and the two lawyers, namely, Atty. Fernandez and
Atty. Carbonell. According to the agreement, the 30% attorney͛s fees shall be divided
equally amongst the three.
 Ruling of the Court on the said matter:

We strike down the alleged oral agreement that the union president should share
in the attorney͛s fees. Canon 34 of Legal 0thics condemns this arrangement in
terms clear and explicit. It says: ͞No division of fees for legal services is proper,
except with another lawyer, based upon a division of service or responsibility.͟ The
union president is not the attorney for the laborers. He may seek compensation
only as such president. An agreement whereby a union president is allowed to
share in attorneys͛ fees is immoral. Such a contract we emphatically reject. It cannot
be justified.