GR 96354; (June, 1993) (Digest)
G.R. No. 96354 . June 8, 1993.
LAPERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION and SUNBEAMS CONVENIENCE FOOD CORPORATION, petitioners, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and THE HEIRS OF FILOTEO T. BANZON, respondents.
FACTS
Atty. Filoteo T. Banzon filed Civil Case No. Q-34907 in the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Quezon City, to recover attorney’s fees from Oliverio Laperal, Laperal Development Corporation, and Imperial Development Corporation for professional services rendered in ten enumerated cases. On April 8, 1983, the case was decided based on a Compromise Agreement wherein Atty. Banzon waived, forfeited, or considered as fully paid any and all other claims for money or otherwise that he may have had against the defendants in all cases he handled for them in the past. He also reaffirmed his undertaking to protect the defendants’ interests in all unfinished appealed cases without further remuneration.
On May 19, 1987, Banzon filed a new complaint (Civil Case No. 50823) against Oliverio Laperal, Laperal Development Corporation, Imperial Development Corporation, Sunbeams Convenience Foods, Inc., and Vicente Acsay for: 1) annulment of the waiver portion of the Compromise Agreement; 2) collection of attorney’s fees for services in the cases of Imperial Development Corporation vs. Añover, Republic vs. Sunbeams Convenience Foods, Inc., et al., and Laperal Development vs. Ascario Tuazon and Ascario Tuazon v. Judge Maglalang, et al.; 3) recovery of P10,000.00 adjudged payable to him by Ascario Tuazon in Civil Case No. 3918; and 4) payment of nominal damages and attorney’s fees. The Regional Trial Court dismissed the case, holding it had no jurisdiction to annul the Compromise Agreement approved by an equal and coordinate court and that the Agreement already covered the plaintiff’s professional services. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal on jurisdictional grounds but held that attorney’s fees were due to Banzon in the cases of Laperal Development Corporation v. Ascario Tuazon and Ascario Tuazon v. Judge Maglalang and Republic v. Sunbeams Convenience Foods, Inc. Petitioners Laperal Development Corporation and Sunbeams Convenience Food Corporation challenged this part of the decision.
ISSUE
Whether the petitioners are liable to pay Atty. Banzon attorney’s fees for his legal services in the cases of Laperal Development Corporation v. Ascario Tuazon (AC-G.R. CV No. 70186), Ascario Tuazon v. Judge Maglalang (CA-G.R. SP No. 07370), and Republic v. Sunbeams Convenience Foods, Inc. ( G.R. No. 50464 ).
RULING
The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition and MODIFIED the decision of the Court of Appeals. Petitioners Laperal Development Corporation and Sunbeams Convenience Foods, Inc. were declared no longer liable to the private respondents for attorney’s fees in the specified cases.
Regarding Laperal Development Corporation v. Ascario Tuazon and Ascario Tuazon v. Judge Maglalang, the Court held that these cases were covered by the Compromise Agreement. The Agreement clearly stipulated that Banzon waived all claims in all cases he handled for the defendants in the past and undertook to protect their interests in all unfinished appealed cases without further remuneration. These cases were pending in the Court of Appeals at the time of the Agreement and were thus included.
Regarding Republic v. Sunbeams Convenience Foods, Inc., the Court held that Banzon’s claim for attorney’s fees was also waived. Sunbeams was not a party-defendant in the original complaint (Civil Case No. Q-34907) nor a party to the Compromise Agreement. However, Banzon, in his complaint in Civil Case No. 50823, admitted he had waived his attorney’s fees in cases handled for Laperal’s corporations not included in the original complaint. During the hearing, he testified he was not claiming attorney’s fees for services rendered from 1974 to 1981 (which included the Sunbeams case) but only for services from 1983 to 1987 under a new agreement. The pleadings he submitted as proof for the Sunbeams case were dated 1980, falling within the waived period. There was no proof of services rendered after 1983. Thus, his judicial admission militated against his claim.