19) Rayos vs Hernandez

Case #19 (Zosa) [G.R. No. 169079. February 12, 2007.] FRANCISC RA!S, RA!S, "e$$o%er, &s. A''!. NCIAN G. *RNAN+*Z, res"o%e%.

TOPIC: Contingent Fee arrangement FACTS: 1. Rayos was a client of Atty Hernandez in Rayos s !APOCOR. T"e story of t"e case: On Oct #$%#&' 1(&)' ty*"oon +ading "it ,-lacan and conc-rrently' !APOCOR im*r-dently o*ened t"ree floodgates of t"e s*illway of Angat am w"ic" ca-sed flooding of Angat Rier. Conse/-ently' Conse/-ently' 10 relaties of Rayos died and "is familys  *ro*erties were destroyed. Rayos s-ed  !APOCOR. RTC RTC dismissed t"e case for lac2ing credi3le eidence. CA reersed t"e decision and awarded damages in faor of Rayos' w"ic" was also affirmed 3y t"e SC. Final and e4ec-tory on A-g 5' 1((6. T"e awards were as follows: a. Act-al Act-al damages % P7#0' 000  3. 8oral damages 9 P700' 000 c. itigation ;4*enses 9 P10'000. #. T"e c"ec2 iss-ed 3y !APOCOR was t-rned oer to Atty Hernandez as "e was t"e co-nsel of Rayos. Rayos demanded t"e c"ec2 from Atty H 3-t Atty H ref-sed 6. Rayos filed a motion wit" t"e RTC to direct Atty Hernandez to delier to "im t"e c"ec2. es*ite t"e Co-rt Order' Atty Atty H ref-sed claiming t"at it was "is means to ens-re *ayment of "is attorneys fees. 5. Atty Hernandez de*osited t"e amo-nt of P70#' )6). &( to t"e 3an2 acco-nt of Rayos. 7. Rayos filed a dis3arment case against Atty

H for "is fail-re to ret-rn t"e remaining P77&' ($1. #1. $. Atty H re*lied: Rayos allegedly agreed to a contingent 3asis fee on a 50 s"aring: 50< % attorneys fees #0< % litigation e4*enses &. T"e Co-rt referred t"e case to Commission on ,ar isci*line of I,P for inestigation. Inestigating Commissioner • recommended t"e IS8ISSA of t"e case. I,P ado*ted and a**roed t"e same. • 8AI! ISS?;: @"et"er or not t"e contingent fee agreement is 3inding -*on Rayos and Atty Hernandez. ;CISIO!: ;S' 3-t wit" R;S;RBA R;S;RBATIO!S. CO!TI!;!T F;; 9 t"e contingent fee is t"e amo-nt agreed -*on 3y t"e *arties s-3Dect to t"e sti*-lation t"at co-nsel will 3e  *aid for "is legal serices o%-y $  t"e  t"e s-it or litigation *ros*ers. ;S: Contracts of this nature are permitted   3eca-se t"ey redo-nd to t"e 3enefit of t"e  *oor client and t"e lawyer es*ecially in cases w"ere t"e client "as meritorio-s ca-se of action 3-t no means to *ay for legal serices' -nless "e agrees to a contract of contingent fee. A m-c" "ig"er com*ensation is allowed as contingent fee in consideration of t"e ris2 t"at t"e lawyer may get not"ing if  t"e s-it fails. R;S;RBATIO!S: Contingent fee contracts  should always be subject to the supervision of a court as to its reasonableness. @"en reasonableness. @"en t"e co-rts find t"at t"e sti*-lated amo-nt is e4cessie or fo-nd to "ae 3een marred 3y

fra-d' mista2e' -nd-e infl-ence on t"e *art of t"e attorney' *-3lic *olicy demands t"at said contract 3e disregarded to *rotect t"e client from -nreasona3le e4action. In t"e case at 3ar' Atty H collected 76< of t"e total amo-nt d-e to Rayos. Rayos was -nsc"ooled and fr-strated • wit" t"e loss of "is loed ones and t"e destr-ction of "is familys  *ro*erties. ien t"ese facts' Rayos wo-ld easily s-cc-m3 to t"e demands of Atty H regarding "is attorneys fees. Ta2ing note also of Atty Hs efforts •  in litigating Rayos case for 17 years and t"e ris2 "e too2 in re*resenting Rayos on a contingent fee 3asis , a  fee of 35% of the amount awarded to  Rayos would be a fair compensation  for Atty !s legal services. is3arment s"o-ld neer 3e decreed w"ere any lesser *enalty' s-c" as tem*orary s-s*ension' wo-ld accom*lis" t"e end desired. T"-s' g-ided 3y *reio-s r-lings of t"e Co-rt' Atty Hernandezs S?SP;!SIO! FOR $ 8O!THS is D-stified in t"e case at  3ar. %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

 !,: Factors w"ic" s"o-ld g-ide a lawyer in determining "is fees: R-le #0.1 of CPR: a> T"e time s*ent and t"e e4tent of t"e serices rendered or re/-iredE  3> T"e noelty and diffic-lty of t"e /-estions inoledE c> T"e im*ortance of t"e s-3Dect matterE d> T"e s2ill demandedE e> T"e *ro3a3ility of losing ot"er em*loyment as a res-lt of acce*tance of t"e *roffered caseE f> T"e c-stomary c"arges for similar serices and t"e sc"ed-le of fees of t"e I,P C"a*ter to w"ic" "e 3elongsE g> T"e amo-nt inoled in t"e controersy and t"e 3enefits res-lting to t"e client from t"e sericeE "> T"e contingency or certainty of com*ensationE i> T"e c"aracter of t"e em*loyment' w"et"er occasional or esta3lis"edE and  D> T"e *rofessional standing of t"e lawyer.