G.R. No. A.C. No. 12880. November 23, 2021
REINARIO B. BIHAG, ET AL., COMPLAINANTS, VS. ATTY. EDGARDO O. ERA, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

This is a disbarment complaint against Atty. Edgardo O. Era for deceitful conduct concerning his professional fees from his engagement with the Lanao del Norte Electric Cooperative (LANECO). The main decision found respondent guilty of multiple violations of the Lawyer’s Oath, the Rules of Court, and the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR), and imposed disbarment, aggravated by his two prior suspensions from the practice of law. The concurring and dissenting opinion agrees with the penalty of disbarment but disagrees with the finding that the professional fees charged were unreasonable. The opinion notes that the LANECO Board of Directors freely entered into an engagement contract with respondent, which specified his fees for handling two tax-related petitions. The Board also passed resolutions approving the engagement and later a discounted success fee. However, respondent engaged in deceit by misrepresenting that a favorable trial court decision had attained finality to claim success fees, using an exaggerated base amount for calculating those fees, and conniving with another individual to manipulate a collection suit—conduct ultimately nullified by the Court of Appeals for extrinsic fraud.

ISSUE

Whether the professional fees stipulated in the engagement contract between respondent and LANECO are unreasonable and unconscionable, warranting adjustment by the Court.

RULING

No. The concurring and dissenting opinion holds that the fees were not unreasonable per se. The Court has the power to regulate attorney’s fees and deem them unconscionable, but no hard and fast rule exists; each case depends on its facts. The freedom of contract is upheld provided agreements are not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order, or public policy. Here, the LANECO Board’s consent to the contract was intelligent, free, and spontaneous, with no allegation of fraud, violence, intimidation, or undue influence during its perfection. The contract transparently outlined fees for two petitions, and the Board even negotiated a discounted success fee. While respondent later acted deceitfully in collecting fees, that deceit did not vitiate the initial contract. Factors under Rule 20.01 of the CPR—such as the lawyer’s professional standing, the benefits to the client, and the opportunity cost of accepting the engagement—must be considered in assessing reasonableness. The sheer size of the fees alone does not render them unreasonable, especially as services were duly rendered. Thus, the opinion dissents from the main decision’s finding that the fees were unreasonable and required adjustment.