G.R. No. 222538
EDUARDO N. RIGUER, Petitioner
vs.
ATTY. EDRALIN S. MATEO, Respondent
vs.
ATTY. EDRALIN S. MATEO, Respondent
MENDOZA, J.:
FACTS:
Sometime in 2002, petitioner Eduardo N. Riguer (Riguer) engaged the services of respondent Atty. Edralin S. Mateo (Atty. Mateo) to represent him in civil and criminal cases involving a parcel of land covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 12112. They agreed that the compensation for Atty. Mateo's legal services would be the acceptance fee, appearance fee, and pleading fees, which Riguer religiously paid.6
On January 16, 2007, the RTC rendered a judgment favorable to Riguer in the civil case. During the pendency of the appeal, Atty. Mateo was able to make him sign a document entitled "Kasunduan." 7 The said document stated that Riguer agreed to pay Atty. Mateo the following: a)₱30,000.00 as reimbursement for the latter's expenses in the civil case; b) ₱50,000.00 in case of a favorable decision in the civil case; and c) ₱250,000.00 once the land covered by TCT No. 12112 was sold. 8
On May 21, 2009, the appeal was decided in favor of Riguer, prompting Atty. Mateo to demand payment of the fees agreed upon in the Kasunduan. toRiguer refused pay.
ISSUE:
WHETHER ATTY. MATEO IS ENTITLED TO RECOVER ₱250,000.00 IN ATTORNEY'S FEES PURSUANT TO THE KASUNDUAN.
RULING:
The Court, nevertheless, reduces the agreed attorney's fees for being unconscionable. Section 24, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court provides:
Sec. 24. Compensation of attorneys; agreement as to fees. - An attorney shall be entitled to have and recover from his client no more than a reasonable compensation for his services, with a view to the importance of the subject-matter of the controversy, the extent of the services rendered, and professional standing of the attorney. No court shall be bound by the opinion of attorneys as expert witnesses as to the proper compensation but may disregard such testimony and base its conclusion on its professional knowledge. A written contract for services shall control the amount to be paid therefor unless found by the court to be unconscionable or unreasonable. [Emphases supplied]
Accordingly, whether there is an agreement or not, the courts can fix a reasonable compensation which lawyers may receive for their professional services. 20 As an officer of the court, the lawyer submits himself to the authority of the court and, as such, the power to determine the reasonableness or unconscionable character of attorney's fees stipulated by the parties is a matter falling within the regulatory prerogative of the courts.21
We have identified the circumstances to be considered in determining the reasonableness of a claim for attorney's fees as follows: (1) the amount and character of the service rendered; (2) labor, time, and trouble involved; (3) the nature and importance of the litigation or business in which the services were rendered; (4) the responsibility imposed; (5) the amount of money or the value of the property affected by the controversy or involved in the employment; (6) the skill and experience called for in the performance of the services; (7) the professional character and social standing of the attorney; (8) the results secured; (9) whether the fee is absolute or contingent, it being recognized that an attorney may properly charge a much larger fee when it is contingent than when it is not; and (10) the financial capacity and economic status of the client have to be taken into account in fixing the reasonableness of the fee.23[Emphases supplied]
Applying the aforementioned standards, no other conclusion can be reached other than that the ₱250,000.00 attorney's fees was unconscionable.1avvphi1 First, the attorney's fees amounted to almost 50% of the value of theproperty litigated as it was only sold for ₱600,000.00. Second, Riguer was a farmer of advanced age with limited educational attainment. Third, the stipulated attorney's fees in the Kasunduan referred to Atty. Mateo's services for the appeal because the legal fees during the proceedings in the trial court had already been paid. Lastly, Atty. Mateo judicially admitted that he believed he was entitled to 10% attorney's fees. It was stated in the Kasunduan that Atty. Mateo was to be paid ₱250,000.00 because he claimedthat the litigated property had a fair market value of around P3 million. The same, however, was sold for only ₱600,000.00.
WHEREFORE, the April 13, 2015 Decision and the September 3, 2015 and January 14, 2016 Resolutions of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 136297 are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. The attorney's fees in the amount of ₱250,000.00 awarded to respondent Atty. Edralin S. Mateo is reduced to ₱l00,000.00.
SO ORDERED.
