This document summarizes a Supreme Court case regarding a dispute over payment for legal services. Attorney Magdaleno Peña negotiated with illegal tenants occupying land that was sold by Isabel Company to Urban Bank. Peña claims he was promised 10% of the land sale value as a fee by Urban Bank's president. Urban Bank refuses to pay, arguing there was no contract. The regional trial court initially ruled in Peña's favor but the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court did not find evidence of an agreement for 10% and instead awarded Peña compensation based on unjust enrichment equal to his expenses. The Supreme Court affirmed he was not entitled to the full 10% fee claimed.
This document summarizes a Supreme Court case regarding a dispute over payment for legal services. Attorney Magdaleno Peña negotiated with illegal tenants occupying land that was sold by Isabel Company to Urban Bank. Peña claims he was promised 10% of the land sale value as a fee by Urban Bank's president. Urban Bank refuses to pay, arguing there was no contract. The regional trial court initially ruled in Peña's favor but the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court did not find evidence of an agreement for 10% and instead awarded Peña compensation based on unjust enrichment equal to his expenses. The Supreme Court affirmed he was not entitled to the full 10% fee claimed.
This document summarizes a Supreme Court case regarding a dispute over payment for legal services. Attorney Magdaleno Peña negotiated with illegal tenants occupying land that was sold by Isabel Company to Urban Bank. Peña claims he was promised 10% of the land sale value as a fee by Urban Bank's president. Urban Bank refuses to pay, arguing there was no contract. The regional trial court initially ruled in Peña's favor but the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court did not find evidence of an agreement for 10% and instead awarded Peña compensation based on unjust enrichment equal to his expenses. The Supreme Court affirmed he was not entitled to the full 10% fee claimed.
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.