GR 155311; (March, 2004) (Digest)
G.R. No. 155311; March 31, 2004
DOY MERCANTILE, INC., petitioner, vs. AMA COMPUTER COLLEGE and ERNESTO RIOVEROS, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Doy Mercantile, Inc. (DOY) filed a complaint for annulment of contract against respondents, alleging that a director sold corporate properties without proper board authorization. DOY was represented by Atty. Eduardo P. Gabriel, Jr., who filed various pleadings and secured a temporary restraining order. The parties eventually entered into a compromise agreement, leading to a judgment in DOY’s favor. Atty. Gabriel then moved for the fixing of his attorney’s fees, which the Regional Trial Court initially set at ₱200,000.00, later increased to ₱500,000.00 upon reconsideration.
The Court of Appeals modified the award, fixing the fees at ₱200,000.00 and affirming the trial court’s order not to annotate a lien on the property titles. DOY filed the present petition, contending the appellate court failed to properly consider the guidelines under the Rules of Court and the Code of Professional Responsibility, such as the importance of the subject matter and the lawyer’s professional standing, and merely relied on the property value. DOY also noted Atty. Gabriel had already received ₱82,950.00.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in fixing the amount of attorney’s fees at ₱200,000.00.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals. The Court held that the factors listed in Rule 138, Section 24 of the Rules of Court and Rule 20.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility are merely guides for ascertaining the reasonable value of a lawyer’s services. Courts are not strictly bound to consider every single factor in their determination. The reasonableness of a fee is a factual question dependent on the circumstances of each case.
Here, the Court of Appeals, as the final fact-finding body, had sufficiently considered the extent and value of the services rendered. It noted the complexity of the case, the benefit obtained for DOY through the compromise agreement which led to the cancellation of the disputed sale, and the various legal services performed by Atty. Gabriel, including handling interrelated cases. The Supreme Court found no reversible error in the appellate court’s factual assessment and conclusion that the awarded fee was commensurate with the lawyer’s efforts and the successful outcome achieved for the client. The award was thus upheld.