G.R. No. 267487 , August 30, 2023
JOSE P. SINGH, PETITIONER, VS. PERFECTO S. CORPUS, JR. AND MARLENE S. CORPUS, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

This case originated from a complaint for damages filed by respondents, Spouses Atty. Perfecto S. Corpus, Jr. and Marlene Corpus, against petitioner Jose P. Singh. In June 2014, Singh engaged Atty. Corpus as counsel for a civil case, paying him a PHP 30,000.00 acceptance fee. Shortly after, Singh terminated the retainer agreement and demanded the return of the fee. Atty. Corpus refused, explaining he had already commenced legal work. Singh then filed a disbarment complaint (A.C. No. 10529) against Atty. Corpus, alleging negligence for failing to render legal service and unethical conduct for refusing to return the fee and for furnishing copies of his reply letter to Singh’s wife and his former law firm. The Supreme Court dismissed the disbarment complaint for lack of merit, holding that the acceptance fee was non-refundable as it compensates for the lawyer’s opportunity cost, and that Atty. Corpus had not violated ethical rules. Subsequently, Atty. Corpus filed a civil case for damages against Singh, alleging malicious prosecution due to the baseless disbarment complaint. The Regional Trial Court found Singh liable and awarded damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed this finding but modified the liability, holding only Singh (and not his wife) liable.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the finding of malicious prosecution against petitioner Jose P. Singh and in ordering him to pay damages to respondent Atty. Perfecto S. Corpus, Jr.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION the Court of Appeals’ Decision. The Court held that the issues raised by Singh were factual and a rehash of arguments already passed upon. The concurrent factual findings of the lower courts, which found the disbarment complaint to be baseless and malicious, are binding. The Court sustained the finding of malicious prosecution, as the disbarment case was filed to vex Atty. Corpus after he refused to return the non-refundable acceptance fee. However, the Supreme Court reduced the amounts of damages awarded in line with jurisprudence. Petitioner Jose P. Singh is ORDERED to pay Atty. Perfecto S. Corpus, Jr. PHP 30,000.00 as moral damages, PHP 20,000.00 as exemplary damages, PHP 10,000.00 as attorney’s fees, and PHP 17,360.00 as cost of suit. These monetary awards shall earn 6% interest per annum from the finality of the Decision until fully paid.