FACTS: In 1997, complainant ETCHA and respondent entered into a Retainer’s Agreement wherein respondent lawyer agreed to handle the case of the complainant against LVF Realty, Mr. Tinsay and BPI Family Savings Bank by way of filing a complaint – in – intervention. ETCHA alleged that after respondent received the amount of Php 20, 000, he did nothing for the development of the case and to update the complaint-in-intervention.
ETCHA then demanded the return of the amount received by respondent since he did nothing to protect the interest of the complainant. Respondent promised to return the amount but after deducting therefrom a reasonable fee for the efforts exerted by him. He averred that the agreement also included an earlier case with the HLURB where he was able to obtain a favorable judgment for the complainant.
It appears however that respondent, for one reason or another, failed to attend any hearing with the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline tasked to hear this administrative complaint.
ISSUE: Whether or not respondent is entitled to compensation based on the Retainer’s Agreement? If not, is he entitled to compensation based on quantum meruit?
HELD: He is not entitled to compensation neither based on the Retainer’s Agreement nor on quantum meruit.
Generally, a valid written agreement fixing attorney’s fees is conclusive as between the parties. And when both parties are deemed to have impliedly repudiated the contract and placed themselves in the position as though there was no express stipulation as to the attorney’s fees, the lawyer’s compensation shall be determined on the basis of quantum meruit. Here, the Supreme Court considered the demand of ETCHA for the refund of the entire amount received as attorney’s fees and the counter – proposal of respondent to deduct reasonable fees for the efforts exerted by him as implied repudiation of the contract by both parties.
However, to deserve compensation based on quantum meruit the lawyer must prove by substantial evidence that he is entitled to a reasonable fee for his efforts in pursuing his client’s case with the court taking into account certain factors in fixing the amount of his fees. It is noteworthy to point out respondent’s failure to attend any hearing of his disbarment case before the IBP without presenting any reason. Respondent’s lamentable attitude towards his client’s case is clearly evident from his apparent disinterest in his own case for disbarment. Therefore, for having missed the opportunities to present evidence in his favor without any satisfactory explanation as to his non-appearance, he should be denied compensation based on quantum meruit due to the lack of any factual basis to determine the value of his work as complainant’s counsel.
ETCHA then demanded the return of the amount received by respondent since he did nothing to protect the interest of the complainant. Respondent promised to return the amount but after deducting therefrom a reasonable fee for the efforts exerted by him. He averred that the agreement also included an earlier case with the HLURB where he was able to obtain a favorable judgment for the complainant.
It appears however that respondent, for one reason or another, failed to attend any hearing with the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline tasked to hear this administrative complaint.
ISSUE: Whether or not respondent is entitled to compensation based on the Retainer’s Agreement? If not, is he entitled to compensation based on quantum meruit?
HELD: He is not entitled to compensation neither based on the Retainer’s Agreement nor on quantum meruit.
Generally, a valid written agreement fixing attorney’s fees is conclusive as between the parties. And when both parties are deemed to have impliedly repudiated the contract and placed themselves in the position as though there was no express stipulation as to the attorney’s fees, the lawyer’s compensation shall be determined on the basis of quantum meruit. Here, the Supreme Court considered the demand of ETCHA for the refund of the entire amount received as attorney’s fees and the counter – proposal of respondent to deduct reasonable fees for the efforts exerted by him as implied repudiation of the contract by both parties.
However, to deserve compensation based on quantum meruit the lawyer must prove by substantial evidence that he is entitled to a reasonable fee for his efforts in pursuing his client’s case with the court taking into account certain factors in fixing the amount of his fees. It is noteworthy to point out respondent’s failure to attend any hearing of his disbarment case before the IBP without presenting any reason. Respondent’s lamentable attitude towards his client’s case is clearly evident from his apparent disinterest in his own case for disbarment. Therefore, for having missed the opportunities to present evidence in his favor without any satisfactory explanation as to his non-appearance, he should be denied compensation based on quantum meruit due to the lack of any factual basis to determine the value of his work as complainant’s counsel.
0 comments:
Post a Comment