11/9/2016

G.R.No.160334

TodayisWednesday,November09,2016

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila
FIRSTDIVISION
G.R.No.160334September11,2006
GUENTERBACH,petitioner,
vs.
ONGKIKOKALAWMANHIT&ACORDALAWOFFICES,respondent.
DECISION
CHICONAZARIO,J.:
ThisPetitionforReviewonCertiorariseekstoreversetheDecision1dated8October2003oftheCourtofAppeals
inCAG.R.CVNo.74445,entitled,"OngkikoKalawManhit&AccordaLawOfficesv.GuenterBach."
Thefactsasculledfromtherecordsofthecaseareasfollows:
On7November1994,petitionerGuenterBachengagedtheservicesofrespondentlawfirmOngkikoKalawManhit
&AccordaLawOfficestorepresenthiminaPetitionforDeclarationofNullityofMarriagefiledbeforetheRegional
Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City, Branch 143, docketed as Civil Case No. 95224. The parties signed a "Fee
Agreement," for the legal services to be rendered by respondent. The provision for payment of the legal services
reads:
(a) seven and onehalf (7 % ) of all cash recoveries, including damages, interests, attorney's fees and
costsaswellas
(b)fivepercent(5%)ofthemarketvalueofallpropertiesawardedto[thepetitioner]bythecourtorobtained
throughthecompromiseagreement,valuedatthetimeofrecovery.2
However, on 5 December 1995, respondent withdrew its appearance as counsel of petitioner, due to policy
differences. On 18 December 1995, respondent sent the termination billing3 for the services they rendered and
billedpetitionerthetotalamountofP1,000,000.00plus2%interestforeverymonthofdelayinpayment,basedon
theprovisionforterminationofservicesstatedintheirFeeAgreement,thus:
(C)Interestforlatepayment
All fees mentioned herein are payable within seven (7) days from receipt of our statement of account. It is
understoodthatalllatepaymentsshallbesubjecttointerestpaymentattherateof2%permonthofdelay,a
fraction of a month being considered as one month, counted from the date the fees shall fall due, without
needofpriordemand.
xxxx
(F)TerminationClause
It is understood that you may terminate our services at any time. In such an event, we shall be entitled to
collectfeesforlegalservicesalreadyperformedandresultsobtainedbasedonquantummeruit."4
On 7 March 1996, respondent filed with the RTC a Notice5 of Charging Lien over the properties of the spouses
Bach.
On 5 February 1997, the RTC issued an Order6 directing the annotation of the charging lien in the amount of
P1,000,000.00 on all the titles of the spouses Bach's personal and real properties enumerated in the notice of
charginglien.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/gr_160334_2006.html

1/8

11/9/2016

G.R.No.160334

On11February1999,respondentreceivedacopyoftheOrder7dated8June1998,grantingpetitioner'sMotionto
WithdrawhispetitioninCivilCaseNo.95224.
Despite respondent's demands for his legal fees, petitioner failed and refused to pay. Thus, respondent filed a
Complaint8 for a sum of money also before the RTC of Makati, Branch 148, docketed as Civil Case No. 99514.
Respondentprayedforthepaymentofthefollowing:P1,000,000.00asthelatter'slawfulfeesforservicesrendered
in Civil Case No. 95224, plus 2% interest from date of final demand until paid P250,000.00 as exemplary
damagesP200,000.00representingbillabletimespentinprosecutingthecase,plusanotherP150,000.00forany
appealtakenandP50,000.00aslitigationexpensesandthecostofsuit.
WithintheperiodforfilinganAnswer,petitionerfiledaMotion9todismissonthegroundthatrespondent'sclaimhad
already been paid, waived, abandoned or otherwise extinguished. Petitioner contended that prior to respondent's
withdrawal as counsel in Civil Case No. 95224, petitioner had already paid respondent's services in the total
amount of P200,000.00. On 9 August 1999, the Motion to Dismiss was denied10 by the RTC for lack of merit.
Petitioner failed to file his Answer thus, he was declared in default and respondent was allowed to present its
evidenceexparte.11
On 24 January 2002, the RTC rendered its judgment in favor of the respondent, the dispositive portion of which
reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiff and against the
defendantandthelatterisherebyorderedtopaythefollowing:
1. The amount of P750,000.00 as plaintiff's lawful fees for services rendered under Civil Case No. 95224,
plusinterestattherateof2%permonthfromthedateofdemanduntilpaid
2.P700,000.00representingbillabletimewhichwasspentinprosecutingthiscase
3.P50,000.00asandlitigationexpenses,and
4.Costsofsuit.12
Notsatisfied,petitionerappealedtotheCourtofAppeals,whichmodifiedtheRTCDecision,thus:
WHEREFORE,Basedontheforegoingpremises,theinstantappealisPARTLYGRANTEDandtheappealed
January24,2002DecisionoftheRegionalTrialCourtofMakatiCityBranch148inCivilCaseNo.99514is
hereby MODIFIED. Accordingly, the award of P700,000.00 representing billable time allegedly spent in the
prosecution of the case a quo is hereby DELETED. All other aspects of the appealed DECISION are
UPHELD.13
Hence,thisPetitionfiledbypetitionerGuenterBachraisingthefollowingissuestowit:
WHETHERORNOTUNDERTHECONCEPTOFQUANTUMMERUIT,THEAMOUNTOFP750,000.00AS
FEES FOR SERVICES RENDERED WITH INTEREST PEGGED AT 2% A MONTH FROM DATE OF
DEMANDUNTILFULLYPAIDISREASONABLE
WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS LEGAL BASIS TO AWARD P50,000.00 AS AND FOR LITIGATION
EXPENSESANDCOSTSOFSUIT.14
Onthefirstissue,petitionercontendsthattheP750,000.00awardedtotherespondentbywayofquantummeruit,
withinterestof2%amonthfromdateofdemanduntilfullypaid,isexcessive,unreasonableandconfiscatory.Thus,
petitionerpraysforreductionofthesame.
BoththeCourtofAppealsandthetrialcourtapprovedtheattorney'sfeesinthetotalamountsofP750,000.00plus2
%interestfortheservicesrenderedbyrespondentinCivilCaseNo.95224.Inthisregard,theruleisthattheissue
ofthereasonablenessofattorney'sfeesbasedonquantummeruitisaquestionoffact,andwellsettledistherule
that conclusions and findings of fact by the lower courts are entitled to great weight on appeal and will not be
disturbedexceptforstrongandcogentreasons.ThefindingsoftheCourtofAppealsbyitself,whicharesupported
bysubstantialevidence,arealmostbeyondthepowerofreviewbytheSupremeCourt.15Thus,intheexerciseof
theSupremeCourt'spowerofreviewthefindingsoffactsoftheCourtofAppealsareconclusiveandbindingonthe
SupremeCourt.Thereare,however,recognizedexceptionstothisrule,namely:(1)whenthefindingsaregrounded
entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures (2) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or
impossible (3) when there is grave abuse of discretion (4) when the judgment is based on misapprehension of
facts (5) when the findings of facts are conflicting (6) when in making the findings the Court of Appeals went
beyondtheissuesofthecase,oritsfindingsarecontrarytotheadmissionsofboththeappelleeandtheappellant
(7)whenthefindingsarecontrarytothetrialcourt(8)whenthefindingsareconclusionswithoutcitationofspecific
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/gr_160334_2006.html

2/8

11/9/2016

G.R.No.160334

evidenceonwhichtheyarebased(9)whenthefactssetforthinthepetitionaswellasinthepetitioner'smainand
reply briefs are not disputed by the respondent (10) when the findings of facts are premised on the supposed
absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record and (11) when the Court of Appeals manifestly
overlookedcertainrelevantfactsnotdisputedbytheparties,whichifproperlyconsidered,wouldjustifyadifferent
conclusion.16 Exceptions (4) and (11) are present in the case at bar, and so this Court shall make its own
determinationofthefactsrelevantfortheresolutionofthecase.
Ordinarily,therefore,wewouldhaveremandedthiscaseforfurtherreceptionofevidenceastotheextentandvalue
oftheservicesrenderedbyrespondenttopetitioner.However,soasnottoneedlesslyprolongtheresolutionofa
comparativelysimplecontroversy,wedeemitjustandequitabletofixinthepresentrecourseareasonableamount
ofattorney'sfeesinfavorofrespondent.
There are two concepts of attorney's fees. In the ordinary sense, attorney's fees represent the reasonable
compensation paid to a lawyer by his client for the legal services rendered to the latter. On the other hand, in its
extraordinary concept, attorney's fees may be awarded by the court as indemnity for damages to be paid by the
losingpartytotheprevailingparty.17
Theissueinthiscaseconcernsattorney'sfeesintheordinaryconcept.Generally,theamountofattorney'sfeesdue
isthatstipulatedintheretaineragreementwhichisconclusiveastotheamountofthelawyer'scompensation.Inthe
absencethereof,theamountofattorney'sfeesisfixedonthebasisofquantummeruit,i.e.,thereasonableworthof
the attorney's services. Courts may ascertain also if the attorney's fees are found to be excessive, what is
reasonableunderthecircumstances.18Innocase,however,mustalawyerbeallowedtorecovermorethanwhatis
reasonable,pursuanttoSection24,Rule138oftheRulesofCourt,whichprovides:
SEC.24.Compensationofattorney'sfeesagreementastofees.Anattorneyshallbeentitledtohaveand
recover from his client no more than a reasonable compensation for his services, with a view to the
importanceofthesubjectmatterofthecontroversy,theextentoftheservicesrendered,andtheprofessional
standingoftheattorney.Nocourtshallbeboundbytheopinionofattorneysasexpertwitnessesastothe
proper compensation, but may disregard such testimony and base its conclusion on its own professional
knowledge.Awrittencontractforservicesshallcontroltheamounttobepaidthereforunlessfound
bythecourttobeunconscionableorunreasonable.(Underscoringsupplied.)
Wehaveidentifiedthecircumstancestobeconsideredindeterminingthereasonablenessofaclaimforattorney's
feesasfollows:(1)theamountandcharacteroftheservicerendered(2)labor,time,andtroubleinvolved(3)the
nature and importance of the litigation or business in which the services were rendered (4) the responsibility
imposed (5) the amount of money or the value of the property affected by the controversy or involved in the
employment(6)theskillandexperiencecalledforintheperformanceoftheservices(7)theprofessionalcharacter
and social standing of the attorney (8) the results secured and (9) whether the fee is absolute or contingent, it
beingrecognizedthatanattorneymayproperlychargeamuchlargerfeewhenitiscontingentthanwhenitisnot.19
Rule20.1,Canon20oftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibilityenumeratesthefollowingfactorswhichshouldguide
alawyerindetermininghisfees:
(a)thetimespentandextentofservicesrenderedorrequired
(b)thenoveltyanddifficultyofthequestionsinvolved
(c)theimportanceofthesubjectmatter
(d)theskilldemanded
(e)theprobabilityoflosingotheremploymentasaresultoftheacceptanceoftheprofferedcase
(f) the customary charges for similar services and the schedule of fees of the IBP Chapter to which he
belongs
(g)theamountinvolvedinthecontroversyandthebenefitsresultingtotheclientfromtheservice
(h)thecontingencyorcertaintyofcompensation
(i)thecharacteroftheemployment,whetheroccasionalorestablishedand
(j)theprofessionalstandingofthelawyer.
In determining a reasonable fee to be paid to respondent as compensation for their services on quantum
meruit,basedonthefactorsabovequoted,itispropertoconsiderallthefactsandcircumstancesobtainingin
thiscase.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/gr_160334_2006.html

3/8

11/9/2016

G.R.No.160334

ItisundisputedthatrespondentfirmhadrenderedservicesascounselforthepetitionersinCivilCaseNo.95244.
Theservicesrenderedconsistofthefollowing:
1.Respondentwasabletoannotateanotice20oflispendensonthepropertyofSpousesBachinCaloocan
CitycoveredbyTCTNo.C12112,therebypreventingeasydispositionofthepropertybyLuzvimindaBach
2.Respondentwaslikewiseabletoannotateanotice21oflispendens on the property of Spouses Bach in
PasigCitycoveredbyTCTNo.48223,therebypreventingdispositionofthepropertybyLuzvimindaBach
3.Further,respondentannotatedanotice22oflispendensonthepropertyofSpousesBachinDasmarinas,
CavitecoveredbyTCTNo.T339282,therebypreventingdispositionofthepropertybyLuzvimindaBach
4. Additionally, respondent annotated a notice23 of lispendens on the property of Spouses Bach in Tanza,
Cavite,coveredbyTCTNo.T255263,therebypreventingdispositionofthepropertybyLuzvimindaBach
5.Respondentalsoworkedontheannotationofthenotice24oflispendensonthepropertyofSpousesBach
inMakati,coveredbyTCTNo.S62541,therebypreventingdispositionofthepropertybyLuzvimindaBach
6. Respondent worked on the annotation of a notice of lis pendens on the property of Spouses Bach in
Dasmarias, Cavite, covered by TCT No. T380848, thereby preventing disposition of the property by
LuzvimindaBach
7. Respondent annotated a notice25 of lis pendens on the property of Spouses Bach situated in Tagaytay
City,coveredbyTCTNo.P705,therebypreventingdispositionofthepropertybyLuzvimindaBach
8. Respondent filed the Petition26 for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage and Dissolution of the Conjugal
PartnershipofGainsofpetitionerwithhiswife
9.Respondentpreparedanaffidavit27 in favor of petitioner attesting to the fact of petitioner's marriage and
theirpropertiesacquiredduringhismarriagewithLuzvimindaBach:
10. Respondent prepared an exparte motion28 to declare petitioner's wife to have waived her right to file
answer for failure to file the same within the period granted by law and to direct the public prosecutor to
determinewhetherornotacollusionexist
11.RespondentpreparedaPetition29forappointmentofareceiverandtocompelpetitioner'swifetorender
anaccounting
12.Otherservicesincludedthefillingofseveraloppositions30tocertainmotionsfiledbypetitioner'swife
13.Respondentfiledamotion31tosetthecaseforpreliminaryinvestigation
14.Respondentfiledanexpartemotion32todeclarepetitioner'swifeindefault
15. Respondent submitted a supplemental comment33 on the motion for leave to withdraw funds from
CertificateofParticipationfiledbypetitioner'swife
16.Respondentfiledamanifestationandmotion34prayingthecourttodirectpetitioner'swifetodesignateher
leadcounselinthecase
17.RespondentpreparedaReply35tocommentsonoppositionofpetitioner
18. Respondent was able to secure an Order36 from the said court freezing the United Coconut Planters
Bank (UCPB) account in the name of petitioner's wife, Luzviminda Bach, containing about P6,500,000.00,
representingthebalanceoftheproceedsfromthesaleoftheirconjugalpropertyinPasigCity
19. Respondent represented petitioner in numerous hearings in Civil Case No. 95224, evidenced by the
signaturesofthelawyersofrespondentLawFirmintheminutesdated25April1995,27April,1995,14June
1995, 27 June 1995, 1 August 1995, 11 August 1995, 22 September 1995,10 October 1995, 17 October
1995,1December1995,7December1995,29March1996and16January199737
20.Conductedseveralpreliminaryandpostlitigationconferencesintheproceedingsforpreliminaryinjunction
leadingtothefreezingofthebankaccountofthepartiesand

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/gr_160334_2006.html

4/8

11/9/2016

G.R.No.160334

21.Preparedandsentoutnumerousletterstothirdpartiesandentitiestoprotecttheinterestofpetitionerand
noticestopetitionerupdatinghimofthestatusofthecaseandthecoursesofactiontakenbyrespondentLaw
Firm.38
Insum,theservicesrenderedbytherespondentasenumeratedaboveandasadmitted39byAtty.MarioOngkiko
duringtheexpartehearing,consistofannotatingnoticeoflispendensontheconjugalpropertiesofpetitionerand
his wife filing the Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage preparing and filing various pleadings and
documents relevant to the case obtaining a freeze order of petitioner's funds in the UCPB attending hearings in
CivilCaseNo.05224,andsendingnoticestopetitionerupdatingthelatterofthestatusofthecase.NothinginCivil
CaseNo.95224sofarappearscomplicatedandnoextraordinaryskillwasneededforlawyersofrespondentLaw
Firmtoaccomplishwhattheyhaddoneinthecasebeforetheywithdrewtheirappearance.Wedonotfindhereina
situationsointricatethatdemandsmorethanacarefulscrutinyofthelegalmattersinvolved.Thesearesimplythe
normaldutiesofalawyerthatheisboundbylawtorendertohisclientswithutmostfidelityforwhichhisclientmust
notbeburdenedtopayanextraprice.Itbearsstressingthatatthetimerespondentfirmwithdrewtheirappearance
duetopolicydifferenceswithpetitioner,thecasewasstillinitsinitialstage.
Guidedbytheaboveyardstickandsomuchofthepertinentdataasareextantintherecordsofthiscaseandinthe
exerciseofoursounddiscretion,weholdthattheamountofP500,000.00isareasonableandfaircompensationfor
thelegalservicesrenderedbyrespondenttothepetitioner.
The imposition of legal interest on the amount payable to private respondent as attorney's fees is unwarranted.
Even as we agree that parties can freely stipulate on the terms of payment, still the imposition of interest in the
paymentofattorney'sfeesisnotjustified.InthecaseofCortesv.CourtofAppeals,40weruledthatArticle220941of
the Civil Code does not even justify the imposition of legal interest on the payment of attorney's fees as it is a
provisionoflawgoverningordinaryobligationsandcontracts.Itdeletedthe6%interestimposedbytheappellate
court on the payment of attorney's fees. It ratiocinated by citing Mambulao Lumber Co. v. Philippine National
Bank,42thus:
Contracts for attorney's services in this jurisdiction stands upon an entirely different footing from
contractsforthepaymentofcompensationforanyotherservices.xxx[A]nattorneyisnotentitledin
theabsenceofexpresscontracttorecovermorethanareasonablecompensationforhisservicesandeven
whenanexpresscontractismade,thecourtcanignoreitandlimittherecoverytoreasonablecompensation
iftheamountofthestipulatedfeeisfoundbythecourttobeunreasonable.Thisisaverydifferentrulefrom
that announced in section 1091 of the Civil Code with reference to the obligation of contracts in general,
where it is said that such obligation has the force of law between the contracting parties. Had the plaintiff
hereinmadeanexpresscontracttopayhisattorneyanuncontingentfeeofP2,115.25fortheservicestobe
renderedinreducingthenotehereinsuittojudgment,itwouldnothavebeenenforcedagainsthimhadhe
seenfittoopposeit,assuchafeeisobviouslyfargreaterthanisnecessarytoremuneratetheattorneyfor
theworkinvolvedandisthereforeunreasonable.Inordertoenablethecourttoignoreanexpresscontractfor
attorney's fees, it is necessary to show, as in other contracts, that it is contrary to morality or public
policy(Art.1255,CivilCode).Itisenoughthatitisunreasonableorunconscionable.(Emphasessupplied.)
Wehaveheldthatlawyeringisnotamoneymakingventureandlawyersarenotmerchants.43Lawadvocacy,ithas
been stressed, is not capital that yields profits. The returns it births are simple rewards for a job done or service
rendered. It is a calling that, unlike mercantile pursuits which enjoy a greater deal of freedom from governmental
interference,isimpressedwithapublicinterest,forwhichitissubjecttoStateregulation.44
Alawyerisnotmerelythedefenderofhisclient'scauseandatrusteeofhisclient'scauseofactionandassetshe
isalso,andfirstandforemost,anofficerofthecourtandparticipatesinthefundamentalfunctionofadministering
justice in society.45 It follows that a lawyer's compensation for professional services rendered are subject to the
supervision of the court, not just to guarantee that the fees he charges and receives remain reasonable and
commensurate with the services rendered, but also to maintain the dignity and integrity of the legal profession to
whichhebelongs.Upontakinghisattorney'soathasanofficerofthecourt,alawyersubmitshimselftotheauthority
ofthecourtstoregulatehisrighttochargeprofessionalfees.46
Thoughwereducedtheawardofattorney'sfeesanddisallowedtheimpositionofinterestthereon,thefactthatan
attorney plays a vital role in the administration of justice underscores the need to secure to him his honorarium
lawfullyearnedasameanstopreservethedecorumandrespectabilityofthelegalprofession.Alawyerisasmuch
entitledtojudicialprotectionagainstinjustice,impositionoffraudonthepartofhisclientastheclientagainstabuse
onthepartofhiscounsel.Thedutyofthecourtisnotalonetoseethatalawyeractsinaproperandlawfulmanner
itisalsoitsdutytoseethatalawyerispaidhisjustfees.Withhiscapitalconsistingonlyofhisbrainsandwithhis
skill acquired at tremendous cost not only in money but in expenditure of time and energy, he is entitled to the
protection of any judicial tribunal against any attempt on the part of his client to escape payment of his just
compensation.Itwouldbeironicifafterputtingforththebestinhimtosecurejusticeforhisclient,hehimselfwould
notgethisdue.47
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/gr_160334_2006.html

5/8

11/9/2016

G.R.No.160334

Thus,theCourtofAppealsdidnoterrinawardingexpensesoflitigation.Article2208,paragraphs2,5and11,ofthe
CivilCode,authorizetherecoveryofsuchfees"(2)Whenthedefendant'sactoromissionhascompelledtheplaintiff
tolitigatexxxortoincurexpensestoprotecthisinterestxxx(5)Wherethedefendantactedingrossandevident
badfaithinrefusingtosatisfytheplaintiff'splainlyvalid,justanddemandableclaimxxxand(11)Inanyothercase
where the court deems it just and equitable that attorney's fees and expenses of litigation should be recovered."
Consideringthefactthatrespondentwasdrawnintothislitigationbypetitionertoprotectanddefendtheirinterest
and taking into account the services already rendered by respondent to petitioner, the sum of P30,000.00 as
expensesoflitigationandcostofsuitwouldbereasonableunderthepremises.
WHEREFORE,theDecisionappealedfromisAFFIRMEDWITHMODIFICATIONStotheeffectthattheattorney's
feesawardedtorespondentisREDUCEDtoP500,000.00,thelegalinterestof2%ontheamountduetorespondent
isDELETED,andtheawardoflitigationexpensesisREDUCEDtoP30,000.00.
SOORDERED.
Panganiban,C.J.,Chairperson,YnaresSantiago,AustriaMartinez,Callejo,Sr.,J.J.,concur.

Footnotes
1PennedbyAssociateJusticeElviJohnS.AsuncionwithAssociateJusticesGodardoA.JacintoandLucas

P.Bersamin,concurringrollo,pp.1622.
2Records,Vol.I,p.11.
3Id.Vol.II,pp.380381.
4Id.,Vol.I,pp.1112.
5Id.at154158.
6Id.at38.
7Id.at22.
8Id.at18.
9Id.at2935.
10Id.at5560.
11Id.at65.Orderdated19November1999.
12Id.at236.
13Rollo,pp.2122.
14Id.at7.
15Pimentelv.CourtofAppeals,366Phil.494,501(1999),citingAtlanticGulfandPacificCompanyofManila,

Inc.v.CourtofAppeals,317Phil.707,713(1995).
16LangkaanRealtyDevelopment,Incv.UnitedCoconutPlantersBank,G.R.No.139437,8December2000,

347SCRA542,549Nokomv.NationalLaborRelationsCommission,390Phil.1228,12421243(2000)
CommissionerofInternalRevenuev.EmbroideryandGarmentsIndustries(Phils.),Inc.,364Phil.541,546
547(1999)Sta.Mariav.CourtofAppeals,349Phil.275,282283(1998).
17TradersRoyalBankEmployeesUnionIndependentv.NationalLaborRelationsCommission,336Phil.

705,717(1997).
18Sesbrenov.CourtofAppeals,314Phil.884,894(1995).
19ResearchandServicesRealty,Inc.v.CourtofAppeals,334Phil.652,668(1997).

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/gr_160334_2006.html

6/8

11/9/2016

G.R.No.160334

20Records,Vol.2,pp.344345.
21Id.at338339.
22Id.at335336.
23Id.at332333.
24Id.at342343.
25Id.at430341.
26Id.at278299.
27Id.,ExhibitR1,pp.384395.
28Id.,ExhibitR2,pp.396397.
29Id.,ExhibitR3,pp.399407.
30Id.,ExhibitsR4,pp.408413R5,pp.414417R8pp.423427R9,pp.428430ExhibitR12,pp.438

440andExhibitR14,pp.447450.
31Id.,ExhibitR6,pp.418419.
32Id.,ExhibitR7,pp.420422.
33Id.,ExhibitR10,pp431433.
34Id.,ExhibitR11,pp.434437.
35Id.,ExhibitR13,pp.441446.
36Records,Vol.2,p.301.
37Id.at302315.
38Id.at324380.
39TSN,10September2001,pp.1011.
40443Phil.42,54(2003).
41Art.2209.Iftheobligationconsistsinthepaymentofasumofmoney,andthedebtorincursindelay,the

indemnityfordamages,therebeingnostipulationtothecontrary,shallbethepaymentoftheinterestagreed
upon,andintheabsenceofstipulation,thelegalinterest,whichissixpercentperannum.
42130Phil.366,381382(1968).
43Canon1,CanonsofProfessionalEthics.
44MetropolitanBank&TrustCompanyv.CourtofAppeals,181SCRA367,377,citingCanlasv.Courtof

Appeals,G.R.No.L77691,8August1988,164SCRA160.
45Pinedav.Atty.DeJesus,G.R.No.155224,23August2006.
46Sumaoangv.Judge,RTC,Br.XXXI,Guimba,NuevaEcija,G.R.No.78173,26October1992,215SCRA

136,143.
47Agpalo,LEGALETHICS(4thEd.,1989),pp.302303.
TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/gr_160334_2006.html

7/8

11/9/2016

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/gr_160334_2006.html

G.R.No.160334

8/8