[G.R. No. 161390. April 16, 2008.] [A.C. No. 5041. November 23, 2004.] SALVADOR G. VILLANUEVA, complainant, vs. ATTY. RAMON RAUL H. SESBREÑO, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, PROVINCE OF CEBU, GOV. EDUARDO R. GULLAS, THE F. ISHIWATA, respondent.
SYLLABUS 1.
2.
LEGAL ETHICS; ATTORNEYS; RESPONDENT'S FAILURE TO RETURN THE BALANCE OF SETTLEMENT TO COMPLAINANT UPON DEMAND GAVE RISE TO THE PRESUMPTION THAT HE MISAPPROPRIATED IT IN VIOLATION OF THE TRUST REPOSED ON HIM. ( clinging to something not his and which he had no right) ID.; ID.; A LAWYER SHOULD REFRAIN FROM ANY ACTION WHEREBY FOR HIS PERSONAL BENEFIT OR GAIN HE ABUSES OR TAKES ADVANTAGE OF THE CONFIDENCE REPOSED IN HIM BY HIS CLIENT.
PROVINCIAL TREASURER, THE PROVINCIAL AUDITOR, THE PROVINCIAL ENGINEER PATROCINIO BACAY (sued both in their official and personal capacities), respondents. -Mrs. Rosario Sen and other camineros hired the petitioner to prosecute Civil Cases against Commissioner of Public Highways and the District Engineer -agreement: pay Atty. Raul H. Sesbreño, thirty (30%) percent of whatever back salaries, damages, etc. that they may recover; take care of all expenses in connection with the said cases. -during pendency petitioner registered his charging/retaining lien based on the Agreement. -camineros obtained favorable judgment in CFI -certiorari cases filed by aggrieved party
-Gov. Gullas assumed the position of governor of Cebu, he proposed the compromise settlement of all mandamus cases then pending against the province which included Civil Cases handled by the petitioner. -Under the Comp Agreement executed by Guillas and pet: disbarment case for gross professional misconduct. – immediately appropriate and pay full backwages and salaries as awarded by the trial court hired respondent to handle his caseagainst J.T. Transport, Inc. for – amounts payable to the employeesis subject to said payment of his unpaid wages, separation pay, and other benefits. lawyer's charging and retaining liens as registered in the trial court and in the Honorable Court of Appeals Complainant executed SPA due o insistence of resp. (SPA-agreed to – agreeable to paying an advance of P5,000.00 to each release J.T. Transport from all its obligations to him in consideration employee payable through their counsel,
FACTS:
of P225 000.)
-camineros, through their new counsel (who substituted for the
J.T. Transport delivered four (4) checks to respondent in the sum of petitioner), moved for its execution. P225,000.00 - court then ordered the issuance of a partial writ of execution directing However, respondent gave complainant only P45,000.00 as "first installment," without advising him that the settlement award had been paid in full.
the payment of only 45% of the amount due them and hold 55% -However, instead of complying with the court order directing partial payment, the province of Cebu directly paid the camineros the full amount of their adjudicated claims.
Complainant learned that JT Transport had fully settled its obligation -petitioner filed the complaint for Damages (Thru Breach of Contract) thus demanded upon resp for the delivery of the balance—refused to and Attorney's Fees against the Province of Cebu and its officials and against the camineros. (alleged that by directly paying the camineros the pay amounts due them, the respondents induced the camineros to violate their written contract for attorney's fees.)
Resp: denied the charge' - claimed that they violated the compromise agreement approved by the -alleged that it was actually one Zenaida Villanueva, claiming to be Court complainant's wife, who actually engaged his services. And [aid her -although he was not a party to the above contracts, by virtue of the 33000 w/ complainant's knowledge. registration of his charging lien, he was a quasi-party and thus, had legal -the sums delivered to complainant were also in installments. (cant standing to institute the case present receipt because it was misplaced by his sec,) -all the payments are in the total sum of P224,250.00, leaving only -dismiss case against the camineros after they had entered into an P750.00 due and owing to complainant. Deducted therefrom his 25% agreement but continued against province of Cebu attorney's fee. IBP: vioalted canon16 suspended from the practice of law for one (1) year; that he return the sums of P90,000.00 and P33,000.00 to complainant SC: SUSTAIN (syllabus) -The relationship between an attorney and his client is highly fiduciary in nature. -attorney's fee should not exceed 10%, the rate allowed under the Labor Code. -SUSPENDED 1year and ordered to restitute to complainant the sum of P154,500.00
RTC: favored petitioner and ordered the province to pay him CA: reversed (petitioner failed to sufficiently establish his allegation that the respondents induced the camineros to violate the agreement for attorney's fees and the compromise agreement, and that he suffered damage due to respondents' act of directly paying the camineros the amounts due them. ) SC: -compromise agreement had been validly entered into by the respondents and the camineros and the same became the basis of the judgment rendered by this Court. -evidenced by an agreement for attorney's fees voluntarily executed by the camineros where the latter agreed to pay the former "thirty (30%) percent no fixed amount was specifically provided for in their contract nor was a specified rate agreed upon on how the money claims were to be computed. --- use of the word "whatever" shows that the basis for the computation would be the amount that the court would award in favor of the camineros -Since they agreed to compromise, payment would have to be based on the amount agreed upon by them in the compromise agreement -Considering that petitioner's claim of higher attorney's fees is baseless and considering further that he had settled his case as against his former clients, cannot sustain his right to damages for breach of contract against the respondents, even on the basis of Articles 1191 46 or 1311. cannot render a favorable judgment because there was no breach of contract. Even if there was such a breach, he had waived his right to claim against the respondents by accepting payment and/or absolving from liability those who were primarily liable to him. -The records do not show that when they did so, they induced the camineros to violate their contract with the petitioner; nor do the records show that they paid their obligation in order to cause prejudice to the petitioner. – petition is hereby DENIED..CA AFFIRMED
[G.R. Nos. 151983-84. July 31, 2008.] JOSE MAX S. ORTIZ, petitioner, vs. SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION, respondent.
SC:
- Complainant Gadian and his counsel, herein petitioner, for their part, likewise moved for the partial reconsideration of the same Decision of the appellate court praying that the award of attorney's fees of 10% should be based on the monetary awards adjudged by the NLRC
petitioner's remedy is not against the private respondent, but against his own clients, the complainants. He should file a separate action for collection of sum of money against complainants to recover just compensation for his legal services, and not the present Petition for Review to claim from private respondent the attorney's fees which were adjudged by the NLRC in favor of complainants as the prevailing parties in the Aguirre and Toquero Cases.
Based on the foregoing, the attorney's fees awarded by the NLRC in its Decisions in the Aguirre and Toquero Cases pertain to the Petition for Review on Certiorari seeking to modify or partially complainants, petitioner's clients, as indemnity for damages; and not reconsider the Decision in so far as the award of attorney's fees is to petitioner as compensation for his legal services. Records show concerned that the petitioner neither alleged nor proved that his clients, the complainants, willingly agreed that the award of attorney's fees -member of the Philippine Bar who represented the complainants in would accrue to him as an additional compensation or part thereof. NLRC Cases against herein private respondent San Miguel Corporation since the attorney's fees pertained to the complainants as indemnity -complainants were employees at private respondent's Sales Offices for damages, it was totally within the complainants' right to waive in the provinces. the amount of said attorney's fees and settle for a lesser amount thereof in exchange for the immediate end to litigation. Petitioner (aguirre cases) cannot prevent complainants from compromising and/or -Decision finding all the complainants to have been illegally withdrawing their complaints at any stage of the proceedings just to dismissed. He ordered complainants' reinstatement to their previous protect his anticipated attorney's fees. or equivalent positions without loss of seniority rights. He also ordered private respondent to pay the complainants full back wages, Article 111 of the Labor Code, as amended, which provides that the rice subsidy, and attorney's fees equivalent to 10% of the monetary attorney's fees should be equivalent to 10% of the amount of wages award recovered. Since the complainants decided to settle their complaints against the private respondent, the amounts actually received by (Toquero Case) them pursuant to the Deeds of Release, Waiver and Quitclaim are the -rendered his Decision also ruling that the three complainants were amounts "recovered" and the proper basis for determining the 10% illegally dismissed. ordered the complainants' immediate attorney's fees. reinstatement and other benefits and attorney's fees in the amount of P91,159.75. 12 Petitioner cannot claim further to be a real party in interest. The established rule is that a real party in interest is one who would be (CA-G.R. SP No. 54576-77) benefited or injured by the judgment, or one entitled to the avails of -failure to get favorable decision in both cases, private respondent the suit. elevated the NLRC Decisions to this Court via a Petition for Certiorari. petitioner is not the real party in interest; hence, he cannot file this Petition to recover the attorney's fees as adjudged by the NLRC in its -all but one of the remaining complainants in aguirre and toquero Decisions cases appeared in court in various dates and signed separate Deeds of Release, Waiver and Quitclaim in favor of private respondent in In addition, as found by the Court of Appeals, when the the presence of 2 witnesses complainants executed their respective Deeds of Release, Waiver (agreed to settle their claims against private respondent for amounts and Quitclaim, petitioner already received attorney's fees equivalent less than what the NLRC actually awarded. Private respondent to 10% of the amounts paid to the complainants in accordance with withheld 10% of the total amount agreed upon by the parties in the the Deeds, as evidenced by several cash vouchers and checks said Deeds as attorney's fees and handed it over to petitioner.) payable to petitioner 46 and signed by his representative. 47 Even petitioner himself admitted this fact. -attached the Deeds of Release, Waiver and Quitclaim to its Manifestation and Motion 23 filed before the appellate court. CA This would show that petitioner has been compensated for the affrimed the decision of NLRC only insofar as it concerned services he rendered the complainants. The practice of law is a complainant Gadian the only one who did not execute the deed. And decent profession and not a money-making trade. Compensation the other complaints dismissed. should be but a mere incident.
(G.R. No. 151421 and No. 151427) Private respondent appealed before this Court by filing a Petition for Review no specific provision in the Labor Code, as amended, which requires the conformity of petitioner, as the complainants' counsel, to make (G.R. No. 151983-84) their Deeds of Release, Waiver and Quitclaim valid. Petitioner filed this present Petition for Review on his own behalfpraying that this Court grant him attorney's fees equivalent to Petition is hereby DENIED. those awarded by the NLRC in the Aguirre and Toquero Cases. PETITIONER alleged: -Decision of the appellate court was prejudicial only insofar as it failed to grant 10% attorney's fees based on the monetary and economic awards adjudged by the NLRC in its Decisions in the Aguirre and Toquero Cases. - avows that he is entitled to attorney's fees because (1) the Deeds of Release, Waiver and Quitclaim executed by all but one of the complainants during the pendencybefore the Court of Appeals were done without his conformity; (2) he, together with his assistant lawyers, had invested substantial time and effort for more than seven or eight years (3) petitioner's right to attorney's fees has become vested after rendering painstaking legal services to the complainants, making him and his collaborating counsels entitled to the full amount of attorney's fees as awarded by the NLRC. ISSUE: WON CA COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN NOT AWARDING ATTORNEY'S FEES BASED ON THE ORIGINAL AWARD MADE BY THE NLRC-FOURTH DIVISION.
