G.R. No.

145817 October 19, 2011

URBAN BANK, INC, Petitioner,
vs.
MAGDALENO M. E!A, Respondent.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
G.R. No. 145822
DEL"IN C. GON#ALE#, $R., BEN$AMIN L. DE LEON, %&' ERIC L.
LEE, Petitioners,
vs.
MAGDALENO M. E!A, Respondent.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
G.R. No. 1(25(2
MAGDALENO M. E!A, Petitioner,
vs.
URBAN BANK, INC., )EODORO BORLONGAN, DEL"IN C. GON#ALE#, $R.,
BEN$AMIN L. DE LEON, . *IER+O ,. DI#ON, ERIC L. LEE, BEN ). LIM, $R.,
CORA#ON BE$A*A, %&' AR)URO MANUEL, $R.,Respondents.
"AC)*
It was in 1994 that Isabel Company,Inc. (ICI! sold the land to "rban #an$ Inc.
("#I!. %he cost o& the land is P '4( million. ince the land was occ)pied by
ille*al tenants, the ICI+ lawyer, ,tty. -a*daleno Pena had to ma$e some e&&ort in
ne*otiatin* with the ille*al tenants .)st to vacate the land. #)t the ille*al tenants
will not vacate since they $now that the new owner was the "rban #an$ and not
the ICI. o the ICI as$ "rban #an$ to ma$e a doc)ment a)thori/in* ,tty.
-a*daleno to ne*otiate with them. #)t ,tty. -a*daleno thro)*h their
conversation in the phone with %eodoro #orlon*an, President o& "nion #an$, told
him that it is not easy to ne*otiate with the ille*al tenants since the local cops are
in their side. o ,tty. -a*daleno, in order &or him to ne*otiate )nder "rban #an$,
is as$in* &or a 1(0 o& the total price o& the land sold and to be p)t in writin*. It
was then a*reed by %oedoro #orlon*an thro)*h phone conversation. #)t the
a)thori/ation made by %eodora #orlon*an o& "rban #an$ did not incl)de the 1(0
&ee o& ,tty. Pena. -eanwhile, ,tty. Pena settled the ille*al tenants b)t he *ive the
ille*al tenants 1,1((,(((.(( and he also paid &or the sec)rity *)ards which cost
&or abo)t P 2,(((,(((.((. #)t "rban #an$ re&)ses to pay so ,tty. Pena &iled a
complaint a*ainst the recovery o& the costs he spend .)st to relocate the ille*al
tenants. 3e also as$in* &or the 1(0 attorney+s &ee as what they have a*reed
thro)*h telephone conversation.
DECI*ION O" REGIONAL )RIAL COUR)*
%he trial co)rt a*rees on the payment &or the services o& ,tty. Pena on the
amo)nt o& P '4,1((,(((.(( In the eyes o& trial co)rt, it sho)ld believed the
testimony o& ,tty. Pena and President o& "rban #an$ thr) telephone conversation
in which it was a*reed that the latter will pay &or the 1(0 o& the val)e o& the
property worth P '4(,(((,(((.((.
%he Re*ional %rial Co)rt o& -a$ati City, to which the case shall be ra&&led, is
hereby desi*nated as the co)rt that will &)lly implement the restorative directives
o& this 5ecision with respect to the exec)tion o& the &inal .)d*ment, ret)rn o&
properties wron*&)lly exec)ted, or the payment o& the val)e o& properties that can
no lon*er be restored, in accordance with ection 1, R)le 29 o& the R)les o&
Co)rt. %he parties are directed to address the implementation o& this part o& the
5ecision to the sala to which the case will be ra&&led.
DECI*ION O" COUR) O" AEAL*
It a*rees on the payment &or the services o& ,tty. Pena on the amo)nt o& P
2,(((,(((.((. "nder the le*al principle a*ainst )n.)st enrichment. In which there
has no contract o& a*ency exists between ,tty. Pena and )rban #an$. 6here the
&ormer shall be paid accordin*ly.
DECI*ION O" *UREME COUR)
%he "rban #an$ is entitled to complete restoration and ret)rn o& the properties
levied on exec)tion considerin* the absol)te reversal o& the award o& dama*es,
)pon the payment o& the .)d*ment debt herein amo)ntin* to PhP4,1((,(((, with
interest as indicated in the dispositive portion. 6ith respect to individ)al
petitioners, they are entitled to the absol)te restit)tion o& their exec)ted
properties, except when restit)tion has become impossible, in which case Pe7a
shall be liable &or the &)ll val)e o& the property at the time o& its sei/)re, with
interest. 6hether "rban #an$ and the ban$ o&&icers and directors are entitled to
any claim &or dama*es a*ainst Pe7a and his indemnity bond is best ventilated
be&ore the trial co)rt, as prescribed )nder the proced)ral r)les on exec)tion
pendin* appeal.
It was there&ore denies the petition o& ,tty. -a*daleno and a&&irms with
modi&ication the Co)rt o& ,ppeals. 6hile the R%C o& #a*o City *ravely ab)sed its
discretion in awardin* )nconscionable dama*es a*ainst "rban #an$,Inc.,and its
o&&icers. %here&ore the decision o& R%C is vacated.
I**UE-
6hether or not ,tty. -a*daleno Pe7a is entitled to receive the P'4 million.
,ELD-
8o. ,tty. -a*daleno is not entitled to receive the P'4 million b)t he is entitled
only &or the payment o& compensation &or his services rendered as a*ent o&
"rban #an$. 9n the basis o& the principles o& )n.)st enrichment and :)ant)m
mer)it. ince there is no s)pportin* evidence to present, ,tty. Pena cannot insist
the 1(0 attorney+s &ee since the amo)nt is already )nconscionable. In the
absence o& s)ch a*reements, the principle o& :)ant)m mer)it is applied. 3e is
entitled only to receive the merit o& his services, and &or the reimb)rsement o& his
expenses in sec)rin* the property and relocatin* the ille*al tenants. ;or a total o&
P 4.1 million. It m)st be p)t in mind that lawyerin* is not a b)siness< it is a
pro&ession in which d)ty to p)blic service, not money, is the primary
consideration.