Licudan v CA

Licudan v Court of Appeals Facts: 









 





Atty. Teodoro Domalanta was the counsel of his sister and brother-in-law. He represented them in two civil cases and in both, he obtained judgment in favor of his clients. He filed a petition for Attorney’s Lien with Notification to his Clients which provided that: He is entitled to own 97.5 sq.m of his client’s share of the lot in o question He shall have usufructuary right for 10 years of his client’s share of  o the lot in question All the damages accruing to his client if for the undersigned counsel o A series of hearings were made and a nd the trial court ruled in favor of the lawyer. 10 months after, the heirs of the lawyer’s (deceased) clients filed a motion to set aside the orders of the trial court. The lawyer stressed the fact that the payment of the professional services was pursuant to a contract which could no longer be disturbed as it has already been implemented and since then had become final CA ruled in favor of the lawyer, dismissing the appeal of the petitioners. Instant petition: The petitioners now fault the respondent court for its failure to exercise its inherent power to review and determine the propriety of the respondents’ lawyer’s fees They also accuse their lawyer of having ha ving committed an unfair advantage or legal fraud by virtue of the Contract for Professional Services devised by him. According to the petitioners, they may have won the cases (where the lawyer represented them) but would lose the entire property won in the litigation to their lawyer. They would be deprived of their house and lot and the recovered o damages since everything would just go to lawyer’s fees. Furthermore, a portion of the land that they would recover would still o go to lawyer’s fees since it pertains to the lawyer’s son by way of  usufruct for 10 years.

Issues: 1. W/N the attorney’s fees in this case is reasonable, being in the nature of  contingent fees Held: 1. No. The attorney’s fees in this case is unconscionable and unreasonable. a. The instant petition is granted, and the Court of Appeals’ decision reversed and set aside. b. Atty. Domalanta is awarded reasonable reasonable attorney’s fees in the amount  of P20,000.

Ratio: 





The contract relating to the lawyer’s fees entered into by Domalanta and his clients cannot become final as it pertains to a contingent fee which is always subject to the supervision of the Court with regard to its reasonableness (Section 13, Canon of Professional Ethics). Under Canon 20 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, a lawyer o shall charge only fair and reasonable fees Considering the extent of the services rendered, the case the lawyer handled was just a simple case if partition and no special skill nor any unusual effort  was required. o There is no doubt, then, that Atty. Domalanta took advantage of the situation to promote his own personal interests. o There should never be an instance where a lawyer gets as attorney’s fees the entire property involved in the litigation. It is unconscionable for the client to lose everything he won to the fees of his own lawyer The practice of law is a profession rather than a trade. o The Courts have the responsibility to guard against the charging of  unreasonable and excessive fees by lawyers for their services as counsels A lawyer shall at all times uphold integrity and dignity in the legal o profession