BORCENA vs INTERMEDIATE APPELIATE COURT Case Digest


TITLE
Modesta Borcena, AntonioGimeno  Jr., Estela Gimeno, Rolando Gimeno, Edgardo Gimeno and Anelia Gimeno, petitioners,

vs.

INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, Hon. Clemente D. Paredes, Romulo C. Basa, Leovino Legaspi and Hon. Zotico Tolete respondents.





FACTS


-          On July 6, 1981, the petitioners, engaged the legal services of respondent Gil P. de Guzman with the condition that they will give a total of 25% of their claim as for the attorney’s fee.



-          On this same date, respondent de Guzman filed a complaint for damages against the Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System.



-          On June 18, 1982, Atty. de Guzman filed a motion for preliminary attachment praying that an order be issued attaching properties of the defendants amounting to P710,000.00 plus 20% thereof representing attorney's fees, or a total of P852,000.00. The motion was granted upon plaintiffs' posting a bond of P852,000.00 issued by a bonding company acceptable to the court.



-          The MWSS was directed to hold in trust the P852,000.00 payable to Nam Kwang prompting the plaintiffs to file a motion for them to take custody of the P852,000.00. The motion was denied in the order dated October 20, 1982.



-          On December 7, 1982, the court directed the MWSS to turn over the P852,000.00 to the deputy sheriff and for the latter to deposit

-          On January 11, 1983, De Guzman filed a manifestation questioning the restriction on the checks that the same be deposited only with the Municipal Treasurer of Sta. Maria, Bulacan as uncalled for and contrary to the court's order of December 7, 1982 as modified by the December 15, 1982 order.

-          On June 1, 1983, the lower court issued the challenged order declaring the termination of the legal services of Atty. de Guzman by the petitioners as unjustified.



-          On October 20, 1983, the lower court denied the petitioners' motion for reconsideration and opposition to the motion for execution pending appeal, and granted the motion for execution pending appeal.



-          On November 3, 1983, a writ of execution pending appeal for P177,500.00 attorney's compensation was issued by the Court.



-          The appellant filed a petition in the Court of Appeals on the decision of the lower court in favour of Atty. de Guzman and the petition was GRANTED. The questioned decision of the lower court was reversed and set aside. The petitioners were ordered to pay Atty. Gil de Guzman the amount of TEN THOUSAND PESOS (P10,000.00) as payment for his legal services.


 ISSUE

Whether or not the amount which the respondent Court of Appeals and the trial court ordered to be paid to their former lawyer, as his compensation is reasonable?


RULING

No, even the petitioners executed a contract stating the condition that they  agreed to give 25% of their claim to their lawyer the higher court see nothing in the case appears complicated and no extra ordinary skill was needed for Atty. de Guzman to accomplish what he had done in the case before he was terminated. A court can disregard a contract regarding legal services rendered by a lawyer when it is proven that the amount is unjustifiable and unreasonable.


A contract is a binding of minds, agreeing in the terms & conditions stated within the contract but the implementation of it always applies only when there is no party that would benefit in the expense of others. The court can decide the validity or nullity of a contract.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

OBLIGATION & CONTRACTS Art. 1156 - 1161

Obligation & Contracts By: Pineda Article 1156 Obligation - An obligation is a juridical necessity to give, to do or not to do.  The term obligation is derived from the Latin word " Obligatio " which means tying or binding. The words " juridical necessity " connote that in case of noncompliance, there will be legal sanctions. As per Brugi, Obligation is a juridical tie between two persons, by virtue of which one of them, the creditor, has the right to demand of the other, the debtor, a definite prestation. On the other hand, Manresa defined it as a legal relation established between one party and another whereby the latter is bound to the fulfillment of a prestation which the former may demand of him. Arias defined obligation is a juridical relation  whereby a person (called the creditor) may demand from another (called the debtor) the observance of determinate conduct, and, in case of breach, may obtain satisfaction from the assets of the latter.
Read more

Article 1278

Image
Compensation By: Gretzen M. Colona Article 1278. Compensation shall take place when two persons, in their own right, are creditors and debtors of each other. Compensation is the extinguishment to the concurrent amount of the debts of two persons who, in their own right, are debtors and creditors of each other. Ang compensasyon ay magaganap kung parehong may utang at nagpautang ang bawat isa sa isa't isa. Example: D owes C 5000 Php. C owes D 5000 Php. The parties do not need to pay each other as their obligations are extinguished by compensation. Kinds of Compensation 1. By its effect or extent. a. Total- when both obligations are of the same amount.  b. Partial- when the two obligations are of different amounts. 2. By its cause or origin: a. Legal- when it takes place by operation of law even without the knowledge of the parties. b. Voluntary- when it takes place by agreement of the parties. c. Judicial- when it takes place by order from a
Read more

PEREZ vs POMAR Case Digest

Perez vs Pomar 2 Phil. 682 (1903) March 12, 2016 FACTS Perez filed in the Court of First Instance of Laguna a complaint asking the Court to determine the amount due him for services rendered as an interpreter for Pomar and for judgement to be rendered in his favor. Pomar, on his part, denied having sought the services of Perez, contending that, Perez being his friend, he only accepted the services for they were rendered in a spontaneous, voluntary and officious manner. ISSUE Whether or not consent has been given by the other party. HELD Yes. It does not appear that any written contract was entered into between the parties for the employment of the plaintiff as interpreter, or that any other innominate contract was entered into, but whether the plaintiff’s services were solicited or whether they were offered to the defendant for his assistance, inasmuch as these services were accepted and made use of by the latter, there was a tacit and mutual consent as to the ren
Read more