Augusto M. Aquino vs. Ismael P.

Casabar
G.R. No. 191470, January26, 2015
Facts:
On June 27, 2002, Atty. Domingo (now deceased) verbally contracted petitioner to
represent him in an agrarian case on a contingency fee basis. The case was for the
determination of just compensation for the expropriation and taking of Atty. Domingo’s
rice lands consisting of 60.5348 hectares in Guimba, Nueva Ecija by the DAR pursuant to PD
27. The DAR and the Land Bank initially valued Atty. Domingo’s property at Php 7999.30
per hectare, which Atty. Domingo opposed in the courts. Eventually, DAR fixed
just compensation value at P40,626.54per hectare which was opposed to by the Land Bank.
The Land Bank moved for the reconsideration of the valuation, but was denied-

Meanwhile, on September 30, 2007, Atty. Domingo died. Petitioner then filed a
Manifestation dated December 11, 2007 of the fact of Atty. Domingo's death and the
substitution of the latter by his legal heirs, Ma. Ala F. Domingo and Margarita Irene
F. Domingo (private respondents).

On February 11, 2009, petitioner wrote private respondent Ma. Ala F. Domingo and
informed her of the finality of the RTC/SAC decision as affirmed by the Court of Appeals
and the Supreme Court. He then requested her to inform the Land Bank of the segregation
of petitioner's thirty percent (30%) contingent attorney's fees out of the increase of the
just compensation for the subject property, or thirty percent (30%) of the total increase.

Petitioner claimed never to have received a reply from private respondent. On July
28, 2009, petitioner received a Notice of Appearance dated July 16, 2009 filed by
Atty. Antonio G. Conde, entering his appearance as counsel of herein private respondents
and replacing him as counsel in the same case.

On August 14, 2009, private respondents, through their new counsel, Atty. Conde,
filed a Motion for Execution.
 Petitioner then executed an Affidavit dated August 10, 2009, attesting to
the circumstances surrounding the legal service she has rendered for the deceased Atty.
Domingo and the successful prosecution of the Agrarian case.

On January 11, 2010, public respondent Judge Casabar issued the disputed Order
denying petitioner's motion for approval of attorney's lien.

Issue:
Whether or Not a charging (attorney’s) lien can effectively be filed only
before judgement is rendered

Ruling:

YES. It is well settled that a claim for attorney’s fees may be asserted either in the
very action in which the services of a lawyer had been rendered or in a separate action.

In the case of Rosario, Jr. v. De Guzman, the Court clarified a similar issue and
discussed the two concepts of attorney’s fees – that is, ordinary and extraordinary. In its
ordinary sense, it is the reasonable compensation paid to a lawyer by his client for legal
services rendered. In its extraordinary concept, it is awarded by the court to the successful
litigant to be paid by the losing party as indemnity for damages.
The Conjugal Partnership of Spouses Cadavedo vs. Lacaya

G.R. No. 173188, January 15, 2014

Facts:

Spouses Cadavedo contracted the service of Atty. Lacaya when the spouses filed an
action against the spouses Ames for voiding the contract of sale. The agreement with
regard to the attorney’s fees Lacaya was on a contingency basis of paying him Php 2000.00
if they become the prevailing parties in the case. However, the Regional Trial Court (RTC)
ruled against their favor. On appeal to the Court of Appeals (CA), the appellate court
reversed the ruling of the RTC. Atty. Lacaya then continued to serve as the counsel of the
Cadavedos for some more cases.

On May, 1982, Vicente and Atty. Lacaya entered into an amicable settlement in the
ejectment case, readjusting the area and portion obtained by each. The settlement would
serve as the compromise agreement with regard to the latter’s attorney’s fees. The
Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC) approved the compromise agreement.

The Cadavedo then filed before the RTC an action against the respondent, assailing
the MTC approved compromise agreement for being iniquitous and unconscionable. The
RTC declared the contingent fee of 10.5383 hectares as excessive and unconscionable. The
CA reversed the ruling of the RTC and based its decision on the amount of time and legal
services rendered to the spouses justifying the compromise agreement and rendered the
agreed fee under the agreement reasonable.

Issue:

Whether or Not the compromise agreement is reasonable.

Ruling:

NO. While the Civil Case took 12 years to be finally restored, that period of time, as
matters then stood, was not a sufficient reason to justify a large fee in the absence of any
showing that special skills and additional work had been involved. The issue involved in
that case, as observed by the RTC, was simple and did not require of Atty. Lacaya’s
extensive skill, effort, and research. The issue simply dealt with the prohibition against the
sale of a homestead lot within 5 years from its acquisition.