FLORENCIO FABILLO and JOSEFA TANA !"#!$%$"$&d #' $h&%r h&%r! Gr&(or%o Fa#%))o, Ro*an Fa#%))o, Cr%!$&$a F. Ma()%n$& and An$on%o Fa#%))o+, petitioners, vs. T,E ,ONORABLE INTERME-IATE A..ELLATE CO/RT Th%rd C%0%) Ca!& -%0%!%on+ and ALFRE-O M/RILLO !"#!$%$"$&d #' h%! h&%r! F%a*%$a M. M"r%))o, F)or M. A(cao%)% and Char%$o M. Ba#o)+, respondents. FERNAN, C.J. FACTS1 In her last will and testament dated August 16, 1957, Justina Fabillo bequeathed to her brother, Florenio !herein petitioner", a house and lot in #an #alvador #treet, $alo, %e&te. #he also gave her husband, 'regorio (rioso, a piee o) land in $ugahana&, $alo, %e&te. A)ter Justina*s death, Florenio )iled a petition )or the probate o) said will. +he pro,et o) partition was approved. +wo &ears later, Florenio sought the assistane o) law&er Al)redo -. -urillo !herein respondent" in reovering the #an #alvador propert&. .pon his aeptane to render servies, -urillo wrote to Fabillo that he will be ompensated b& /40% of the money value of the house and lot as a ontigent !sic" )ee in ase o) a suess.0!1oe2s obiter3 -urillo implied that he deserves 456 sine Att&. -ontilla, the previous law&er lost this ase so this is atuall& a revival ase".+he 7ontrat o) #ervies was then drawn whih had the )ollowing stipulations1 2I h&r&#' 3ro*%!& and #%nd *'!&)4 $o 3a' A$$'. ALFRE-O M. M/RILLO, %n ca!& o4 !"cc&!! %n an' or #o$h ca!&! the sum equivalent to FORTY PER CENTUM (40% o! "hateve# $ene!it % ma& 'e#ive !#om su(h (ases.5 +he ase )or the reover& o) the propert& that was )iled againt (rioso was terminated beause o) the parties2 ompromise agreement whih delared Fabillo as the law)ul owner o) the #an #alvador propert& as well as the $ugahana& parel o) land. 8ith this, -urillo proeeded to implement the ontrat o) servies between him and Fabillo. #ubsequentl&, Fabillo laimed e9lusive right over the two properties and re)used to give -urillo his share o) the produe. +hus, the present ase. Inluded in -urillo2s pra&er is to be delared as the law)ul owner o) 456 o) the : properties. Fabillo2s de)ense onsisted o) a vitiated onsent to the ontrat due to old age and ailment, the probate was still pending and the ontingent )ee o) 456 was e9essive. +he& pra&ed that the ontrat o) servies be delared null and void and that -urillo2s )ee be )i9ed at 156 o) the assessed value o) the #an #alvador propert& LC and IAC1 In )avor o) respondent -urillo.;< +he ontrat o) servies did not violate par. 5 Artile 1491 o) the 7ivil 7ode as said ontrat stipulated a ontingent )ee. +he ourt upheld -urillo*s laim )or =ontingent attorne&*s )ees o) 456 o) the value o) reoverable properties.= There was insufficient evidence to prove that the consent was vitiated. Florencio was made to pay 40% of the net produce of the property. Murillo was declared as owner of 40% of both the properties. No$&1 !$aragraph 5 Art. 1491 o) the 7ivil 7ode3$rohibits law&ers )rom aquiring b& purhase even at a publi or ,udiial aution, properties and rights whih are the ob,ets o) litigation in whih the& ma& ta>e part b& virtue o) their pro)ession." ISS/E1 8?@ the 7ontrat o) #ervies was in violation o) paragraph 5 Art. 1491 o) the 7ivil 7odeA ,EL-1 @o. +he 7ontrat o) #ervies did not violate the provision o) law. RATIO1 AS TO T,E S/BSTANTIAL ISS/E1 +he prohibition in Art 1491 applies onl& i) the sale or assignment o) the propert& ta>es plae during the penden& o) the litigation involving the lient*s propert&. A ontrat between a law&er and his lient stipulating a con$%n(&n$ 4&& %! no$ co0&r&d b& said prohibition. 6h'7 +he pa&ment o) said )ee is no$ *ad& d"r%n( $h& 3&nd&nc' o) the litigation but onl& a4$&r 8"d(*&n$ has been rendered in the ase handled b& the law&er !+he 19BB 7ode o) $ro)essional Cesponsibilit& allows law&ers to a lien over )unds and propert& o) his lient and ma& appl& this as )ees )or his servies". 7ontingent )ees are also impliedl& santioned b& @o. 1D o) the 7anons o) $ro)essional Ethis. AS TO T,E INTER.RETATION OF T,E CONTRACT1 +he #7 disagreed that the ontigent )ee stipulated is 456 o) the the properties sub,et o) the litigation )or whih -urillo appeared )or the Fabillos. It is onl& 456 o) the value o) the properties. Fad the parties intended that -urillo should beome the law)ul owner o) 456 o) the properties, it would have been learl& and unequivoall& stipulated in the ontrat. In this ase, the provisions were vague as regards the situations when the propert& was sold mortgaged or leased. +he ambiguit& should be resolved against -urillo sine he was the one who dra)ted the ontrat. IAC decision reversed. Florencios heirs ordered to pay Murillos heirs the amount of P3k as his contingent fee.
Dwight O. Dow v. Circuit Court of the First Circuit, Through the Honorable Marie N. Milks, Criminal and Administrative Judge and Robert A. Marks, Attorney General of Hawaii, 53 F.3d 338, 1st Cir. (1995)