Professional Documents
Culture Documents
DECISION
(with reference to the Compromise Agreement)
Together with the duly signed and executed Compromise Agreement, the
following documents and attachments were also submitted to Court, to wit:
The compensation of P3, 591, 600.00 for Attorney Parcasio and the
plaintiffs association which, of course, he also represents, to our mind, is
far too much.
An award of attorneys fees has always been the exception rather than
the rule. To start with, attorneys fees are not awarded every time a party prevails
in a suit. Nor should an adverse decision ipso facto justify an award of attorneys
fees to the winning party. The policy of the Court is that no premium should be
placed on the right to litigate. Too, such fees, as part of damages, are assessed
only in the instances specified in Art. 2208, Civil Code. Indeed, attorneys fees
are in the nature of actual damages. But even when a claimant is compelled to
litigate with third persons or to incur expenses to protect his rights, attorneys fees
may still be withheld where no sufficient showing of bad faith could be reflected
in a partys persistence in a suit other than an erroneous conviction of the
righteousness of his cause. And, lastly, the trial court must make express findings
of fact and law that bring the suit within the exception. What this demands is that
the factual, legal or equitable justifications for the award must be set forth not
only in the fallo but also in the text of the decision, or else, the award should be
thrown out for being speculative and conjectural.
Rule 20.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility lists the guidelines for
determining the proper amount of attorney fees, to wit:
Rule 20.1 A lawyer shall be guided by the following factors in determining
his fees:
a) The time spent and the extent of the services rendered or required;
b) The novelty and difficult of the questions involved;
c) The important of the subject matter;
d) The skill demanded;
e) The probability of losing other employment as a result of acceptance of
the proffered case;
f) The customary charges for similar services and the schedule of fees of
the IBP chapter to which he belongs;
g) The amount involved in the controversy and the benefits resulting to the
client from the service;
h) The contingency or certainty of compensation;
i) The character of the employment, whether occasional or established; and
j) The professional standing of the lawyer.
Also, worth mentioning is the payment of docket fees. True, that the
plaintiffs were allowed to litigate as pauper litigant when this case was first filed
on March 5, 1996 and their status as pauper litigant was again reiterated during
the settlement proceeding as per Order dated April 15, 2016.
However, a pauper litigant may still have to pay the docket fees later, by way
of a lien on the monetary or property judgment that may accrue to him (Ricardo
Rizal et.al. vs. Leoncia Naredo et.al. G.R. No. 151898, March 14, 2012)
Now then, since payment had already been made, it would be an exercise
in futility to change the conditions of the Compromise Agreement, much less to
order the 292 plaintiffs to pay docket fees. Furthermore, these 292 plaintiffs
received less than the amount paid to Atty. Parcasio as attorney’s fees.
Therefore, being an officer of the Court and having received a huge amount
of attorney’s fee, which ought to have been based on quantum meruit, as above-
stated, Atty. Parcasio should bear the burden of paying the docket fees and
sharing his attorney’s fees with Atty. Oswaldo Macadangdang, who, as we have
stated, also earnestly negotiated with the DOLE for a settlement.
SO ORDERED.
Serve to:
Dole Companies
c/o Atty. Julius Gregory Delgado
Plaintiffs thru DBCP Claimants or DCAI
c/o Atty. Randolph Parcasio
Despite personal notice and thru newspaper publication, the rest of the
impleaded plaintiffs failed to appear before the mediator, and thus, they are
deemed to have waived their right to claim damages and are estopped from
pursuing any action against the herein defendants Dole Companies.