View full case

AUGUSTO M. AQUINO v. ISMAEL P. CASABAR

FACTS:

Atty. Augusto M. Aquino (petitioner) filed a special civil action for certiorari assailing the Order issued by Presiding Judge Ismael P. Casabar (public respondent) in relation to Agrarian Case No. 1217-G. On June 27, 2002, Atty. Angel T. Domingo verbally contracted petitioner to represent him in the said case to determine the just compensation for the expropriation of his ricelands by the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR). The case eventually reached the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision in favor Atty. Domingo. Atty. Domingo passed away in 2007, and petitioner filed a manifestation of his death and the substitution of his legal heirs. The Supreme Court denied Land Bank's petition for review, and petitioner wrote to inform the legal heirs about the finality of the decision and requested for his attorney's fees. However, the court denied petitioner's motion for approval of attorney's lien, stating that the court has no jurisdiction over it since the judgment has become final and executory.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the court can award attorney's fees as an element of damages even if the prevailing party and his lawyer have a fee arrangement.

  2. Whether the court had jurisdiction over the motion for attorney's fees due to non-payment of docket fees.

  3. When can an action for attorney's fees for professional services be filed.

  4. Whether the petitioner is entitled to attorney's fees for the legal services rendered to Atty. Domingo.

  5. The issue in this case is whether or not the Court of Appeals correctly upheld the decision of the trial court in ruling that the accused is guilty of murder beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING:

  1. The fee arrangement between the prevailing party and his lawyer does not bind the party against whom damages by way of attorney's fees may be assessed. The court may take into account the amount stipulated in such fee arrangement in fixing the amount of counsel fees as an element of damages. The fee as an item of damages belongs to the party litigant and not to his lawyer. However, the client and his lawyer may agree that whatever attorney's fee as an element of damages the court may award shall pertain to the lawyer as his compensation or part thereof.

  2. The court had jurisdiction over the motion for attorney's fees even if there was non-payment of docket fees. The non-payment of docket fees does not divest the court of its jurisdiction. Unpaid docket fees should be considered as a lien on the judgment as ruled in Sun Insurance Office, Ltd. (SIOL) v. Asuncion.

  3. A claim for attorney's fees may be asserted either in the same action in which the services of a lawyer had been rendered or in a separate action. The determination of the propriety and amount of attorney's fees may be held in abeyance until the main case from which the lawyer's claim may arise has become final. However, a petition for attorney's fees may be filed before the judgment in favor of the client is satisfied or the proceeds thereof delivered to the client.

  4. Yes, the petitioner is entitled to attorney's fees. Since the agreement for contingent fees was made verbally and there was no evidence to support the 30% contingent fees being claimed by the petitioner, the court applied the principle of quantum meruit. According to the principle of quantum meruit, an attorney must show that he is entitled to reasonable compensation for the effort in pursuing the client's cause. The court considered factors such as the time spent, the extent of services rendered, the skill demanded, and the benefits resulting to the client from the service. The court granted the petitioner attorney's fees at the rate of fifteen percent (15%) of the increase in the just compensation awarded to the private respondents.

  5. The Supreme Court affirmed the ruling of the Court of Appeals, which in turn affirmed the decision of the trial court. The accused was found guilty of murder beyond reasonable doubt.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The fee arrangement between the prevailing party and his lawyer does not bind the party against whom damages by way of attorney's fees may be assessed. The court may take into account the fee arrangement in fixing the amount of counsel fees as an element of damages.

  • Attorney's fees as an item of damages belong to the party litigant and not to his lawyer. However, the client and his lawyer may agree that the attorney's fees awarded by the court shall pertain to the lawyer as his compensation.

  • Non-payment of docket fees does not divest the court of its jurisdiction over the motion for attorney's fees. Unpaid docket fees should be considered as a lien on the judgment.

  • A claim for attorney's fees may be asserted either in the same action in which the lawyer's services were rendered or in a separate action.

  • The determination of the propriety and amount of attorney's fees may be held in abeyance until the main case from which the lawyer's claim may arise has become final. However, a petition for attorney's fees may be filed before the judgment in favor of the client is satisfied or the proceeds thereof delivered to the client.

  • A contract for contingent fees must be in writing. In the absence of an express agreement, an attorney can only recover on the basis of quantum meruit.

  • Quantum meruit is used to determine an attorney's professional fees in the absence of an express agreement. The recovery of attorney's fees on the basis of quantum meruit prevents an unscrupulous client from avoiding payment for legal services.

  • Rule 20.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides guidelines for determining the proper amount of attorney fees.

  • The ruling of the trial court, when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, is accorded the highest degree of respect and considered as conclusive and binding upon this Court, unless there are valid grounds for the reversal or modification thereof.

  • In the crime of murder, the elements that must be proven are: (a) the killing of a person; (b) the accused's participation in the act of killing; and (c) the existence of treachery or any other circumstance that qualifies the killing to murder.