11/17/2016 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 501

VOL. 501, SEPTEMBER 11, 2006 419

Bach vs. Ongkiko Kalaw Manhit & Acorda Law Offices

*
G.R. No. 160334. September 11, 2006.

GUENTER BACH, petitioner, vs. ONGKIKO KALAW

MANHIT & ACORDA LAW OFFICES, respondent.

Attorney’s Fees; Words and Phrases; The amount of attorney’s

fees due is that stipulated in the retainer agreement which is
conclusive as to the amount of the lawyer’s compensation. In the
absence thereof, the amount of attorney’s fees is fixed on the basis
of quantum meruit, i.e., the reasonable amount of the attorney’s
service.—The issue in this case concerns attorney’s fees in the
ordinary concept. Generally, the amount of attorney’s fees due is
that stipulated in the retainer agreement which is conclusive as
to the amount of the lawyer’s compensation. In the absence
thereof, the amount of attorney’s fees is fixed on the basis of
quantum meruit, i.e., the reasonable worth of the attorney’s
services. Courts may ascertain also if the attorney’s fees are found
to be excessive, what is reasonable under the circumstances. In no
case, however, must a lawyer be allowed to recover more than
what is reasonable, pursuant to Section 24, Rule 138 of the Rules
of Court, which provides: SEC. 24. Compensation of attorney’s
fees; agreement as to fees.—An attorney shall be entitled to have
and recover from his client no more than a reasonable
compensation for his services, with a view to the importance of
the subjectmatter of the controversy, the extent of the services
rendered, and the professional standing of the attorney. No court
shall be bound by the opinion of attorneys as expert witnesses as
to the proper compensation, but may disregard such testimony
and base its conclusion on its own professional knowledge. A
written contract for services shall control the amount to
be paid therefor unless found by the court to be
unconscionable or unreasonable.

Same; It follows that a lawyer’s compensation for professional

services rendered are subject to the supervision of the court, not
just to guarantee that the fees he charges and receives remain
reasonable and commensurate with the services rendered but also
to maintain the dignity and integrity of the profession which he
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001586e2d576de825a6ef003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/18
11/17/2016 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 501

belongs.—We have held that lawyering is not a moneymaking

venture and lawyers are not merchants. Law advocacy, it has
been stressed, is not capital

_______________

* FIRST DIVISION.

420

420 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Bach vs. Ongkiko Kalaw Manhit & Acorda Law Offices

that yields profits. The returns it births are simple rewards for a
job done or service rendered. It is a calling that, unlike mercantile
pursuits which enjoy a greater deal of freedom from governmental
interference, is impressed with a public interest, for which it is
subject to State regulation. A lawyer is not merely the defender of
his client’s cause and a trustee of his client’s cause of action and
assets; he is also, and first and foremost, an officer of the court
and participates in the fundamental function of administering
justice in society. It follows that a lawyer’s compensation for
professional services rendered are subject to the supervision of
the court, not just to guarantee that the fees he charges and
receives remain reasonable and commensurate with the services
rendered, but also to maintain the dignity and integrity of the
legal profession to which he belongs. Upon taking his attorney’s
oath as an officer of the court, a lawyer submits himself to the
authority of the courts to regulate his right to charge professional
fees.

Attorneys; A lawyer is as much entitled to judicial protection

against injustice, imposition of fraud on the part of his client as
the client against abuse on the part of his counsel.—Though we
reduced the award of attorney’s fees and disallowed the
imposition of interest thereon, the fact that an attorney plays a
vital role in the administration of justice underscores the need to
secure to him his honorarium lawfully earned as a means to
preserve the decorum and respectability of the legal profession. A
lawyer is as much entitled to judicial protection against injustice,
imposition of fraud on the part of his client as the client against
abuse on the part of his counsel. The duty of the court is not alone
to see that a lawyer acts in a proper and lawful manner; it is also
its duty to see that a lawyer is paid his just fees. With his capital

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001586e2d576de825a6ef003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/18
11/17/2016 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 501

consisting only of his brains and with his skill acquired at

tremendous cost not only in money but in expenditure of time and
energy, he is entitled to the protection of any judicial tribunal
against any attempt on the part of his client to escape payment of
his just compensation. It would be ironic if after putting forth the
best in him to secure justice for his client, he himself would not
get his due.

PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the

Court of Appeals.

421

VOL. 501, SEPTEMBER 11, 2006 421

Bach vs. Ongkiko Kalaw Manhit & Acorda Law Offices

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

     The Law Firm of Tan and Manahan for petitioner.
     Ongkiko Kalaw Manhit & Acorda Law Offices for and
in its own behalf.

CHICO­NAZARIO, J.:

This Petition
1
for Review on Certiorari seeks to reverse the
Decision dated 8 October 2003 of the Court of Appeals in
CA­G.R. CV No. 74445, entitled, “Ongkiko Kalaw Manhit &
Accorda Law Offices v. Guenter Bach.”
The facts as culled from the records of the case are as
follows:
On 7 November 1994, petitioner Guenter Bach engaged
the services of respondent law firm Ongkiko Kalaw Manhit
& Accorda Law Offices to represent him in a Petition for
Declaration of Nullity of Marriage filed before the Regional
Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City, Branch 143, docketed as
Civil Case No. 95­224. The parties signed a “Fee
Agreement,” for the legal services to be rendered by
respondent. The provision for payment of the legal services
reads:

(a) seven and one­half (7 ½ %) of all cash recoveries,

including damages, interests, attorney’s fees and
costs; as well as
(b) five percent (5 %) of the market value of all
properties awarded to [the petitioner] by the court
or obtained through the compromise
2
agreement,
valued at the time of recovery.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001586e2d576de825a6ef003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/18
11/17/2016 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 501

However, on 5 December 1995, respondent withdrew its

appearance as counsel of petitioner, due to policy
differences. On 18 December 1995, respondent sent the
termination bill­

_______________

1 Penned by Associate Justice Elvi John S. Asuncion with Associate

Justices Godardo A. Jacinto and Lucas P. Bersamin, concurring; Rollo, pp.
16­22.
2 Records, Vol. I, p. 11.

422

422 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Bach vs. Ongkiko Kalaw Manhit & Acorda Law Offices

3
ing for the services they rendered and billed petitioner the
total amount of P1,000,000.00 plus 2% interest for every
month of delay in payment, based on the provision for
termination of services stated in their Fee Agreement,
thus:

(C) Interest for late payment

All fees mentioned herein are payable within seven (7) days from
receipt of our statement of account. It is understood that all late
payments shall be subject to interest payment at the rate of 2 %
per month of delay, a fraction of a month being considered as one
month, counted from the date the fees shall fall due, without need
of prior demand.
xxxx

(F) Termination Clause

It is understood that you may terminate our services at any time.

In such an event, we shall be entitled to collect fees for legal
services already 4 performed and results obtained based on
quantum meruit.”
5
On 7 March 1996, respondent filed with the RTC a Notice
of Charging Lien over the properties of the spouses
6
Bach.
On 5 February 1997, the RTC issued an Order directing
the annotation of the charging lien in the amount of
P1,000,000.00 on all the titles of the spouses Bach’s
personal and real properties enumerated in the notice of
charging lien.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001586e2d576de825a6ef003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/18
11/17/2016 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 501

On 711 February 1999, respondent received a copy of the

Order dated 8 June 1998, granting petitioner’s Motion to
Withdraw his petition in Civil Case No. 95­224.

_______________

3 Id., Vol. II, pp. 380­381.

4 Id., Vol. I, pp. 11­12.
5 Id., at pp. 154­158.
6 Id., at p. 38.
7 Id., at p. 22.

423

VOL. 501, SEPTEMBER 11, 2006 423

Bach vs. Ongkiko Kalaw Manhit & Acorda Law Offices

Despite respondent’s demands for his legal fees, petitioner

failed and8 refused to pay. Thus, respondent filed a
Complaint for a sum of money also before the RTC of
Makati, Branch 148, docketed as Civil Case No. 99­514.
Respondent prayed for the payment of the following:
P1,000,000.00 as the latter’s lawful fees for services
rendered in Civil Case No. 95­224, plus 2% interest from
date of final demand until paid; P250,000.00 as exemplary
damages; P200,000.00 representing billable time spent in
prosecuting the case, plus another P150,000.00 for any
appeal taken; and P50,000.00 as litigation expenses and
the cost of suit.
Within
9
the period for filing an Answer, petitioner filed a
Motion to dismiss on the ground that respondent’s claim
had already been paid, waived, abandoned or otherwise
extinguished. Petitioner contended that prior to
respondent’s withdrawal as counsel in Civil Case No. 95­
224, petitioner had already paid respondent’s services in
the total amount of P200,000.00. 10
On 9 August 1999, the
Motion to Dismiss was denied by the RTC for lack of
merit. Petitioner failed to file his Answer; thus, he was
declared in default and
11
respondent was allowed to present
its evidence ex parte.
On 24 January 2002, the RTC rendered its judgment in
favor of the respondent, the dispositive portion of which
reads:

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby

rendered in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant and
the latter is hereby ordered to pay the following:

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001586e2d576de825a6ef003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/18
11/17/2016 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 501

The amount of P750,000.00 as plaintiff’s lawful fees for

1.
services rendered under Civil Case No. 95­224, plus
interest at the rate of 2% per month from the date of
demand until paid;

_______________

8 Id., at pp. 1­8.

9 Id., at pp. 29­35.
10 Id., at pp. 55­60.
11 Id., at p. 65. Order dated 19 November 1999.

424

424 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Bach vs. Ongkiko Kalaw Manhit & Acorda Law Offices

2. P700,000.00 representing billable time which was spent in

prosecuting this case;
3. P50,000.00 as and litigation expenses, and
12
4. Costs of suit.”

Not satisfied, petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals,

which modified the RTC Decision, thus:

“WHEREFORE, Based on the foregoing premises, the instant

appeal is PARTLY GRANTED and the appealed January 24, 2002
Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Makati City­Branch 148 in
Civil Case No. 99­514 is hereby MODIFIED. Accordingly, the
award of P700,000.00 representing billable time allegedly spent in
the prosecution of the case a quo is hereby DELETED.
13
All other
aspects of the appealed DECISION are UPHELD.”

Hence, this Petition filed by petitioner Guenter Bach

raising the following issues to wit:

WHETHER OR NOT UNDER THE CONCEPT OF QUANTUM

MERUIT, THE AMOUNT OF P750,000.00 AS FEES FOR
SERVICES RENDERED WITH INTEREST PEGGED AT 2% A
MONTH FROM DATE OF DEMAND UNTIL FULLY PAID IS
REASONABLE
WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS LEGAL BASIS TO AWARD
P50,000.00
14
AS AND FOR LITIGATION EXPENSES AND COSTS
OF SUIT.

On the first issue, petitioner contends that the P750,000.00

awarded to the respondent by way of quantum meruit, with
interest of 2% a month from date of demand until fully

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001586e2d576de825a6ef003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/18
11/17/2016 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 501

paid, is excessive, unreasonable and confiscatory. Thus,

petitioner prays for reduction of the same.

_______________

12 Id., at p. 236.
13 Rollo, pp. 21­22.
14 Id., at p. 7.

425

VOL. 501, SEPTEMBER 11, 2006 425

Bach vs. Ongkiko Kalaw Manhit & Acorda Law Offices

Both the Court of Appeals and the trial court approved the
attorney’s fees in the total amounts of P750,000.00 plus 2 %
interest for the services rendered by respondent in Civil
Case No. 95­224. In this regard, the rule is that the issue of
the reasonableness of attorney’s fees based on quantum
meruit is a question of fact, and well­settled is the rule that
conclusions and findings of fact by the lower courts are
entitled to great weight on appeal and will not be disturbed
except for strong and cogent reasons. The findings of the
Court of Appeals by itself, which are supported by
substantial evidence, are almost15
beyond the power of
review by the Supreme Court. Thus, in the exercise of the
Supreme Court’s power of review the findings of facts of the
Court of Appeals are conclusive and binding on the
Supreme Court. There are, however, recognized exceptions
to this rule, namely: (1) when the findings are grounded
entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures; (2) when
the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or
impossible; (3) when there is grave abuse of discretion; (4)
when the judgment is based on misapprehension of facts;
(5) when the findings of facts are conflicting; (6) when in
making the findings the Court of Appeals went beyond the
issues of the case, or its findings are contrary to the
admissions of both the appellee and the appellant; (7) when
the findings are contrary to the trial court; (8) when the
findings are conclusions without citation of specific
evidence on which they are based; (9) when the facts set
forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner’s main and
reply briefs are not disputed by the respondent; (10) when
the findings of facts are premised on the supposed absence
of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record; and
(11) when the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked
certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties, which if
properly considered, would justify a different
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001586e2d576de825a6ef003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/18
11/17/2016 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 501

_______________

15 Pimentel v. Court of Appeals, 366 Phil. 494, 501; 307 SCRA 38, 43
(1999), citing Atlantic Gulf and Pacific Company of Manila, Inc. v. Court
of Appeals, 317 Phil. 707, 713; 247 SCRA 606, 611 (1995).

426

426 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Bach vs. Ongkiko Kalaw Manhit & Acorda Law Offices

16
conclusion. Exceptions (4) and (11) are present in the case
at bar, and so this Court shall make its own determination
of the facts relevant for the resolution of the case.
Ordinarily, therefore, we would have remanded this case
for further reception of evidence as to the extent and value
of the services rendered by respondent to petitioner.
However, so as not to needlessly prolong the resolution of a
comparatively simple controversy, we deem it just and
equitable to fix in the present recourse a reasonable
amount of attorney’s fees in favor of respondent.
There are two concepts of attorney’s fees. In the ordinary
sense, attorney’s fees represent the reasonable
compensation paid to a lawyer by his client for the legal
services rendered to the latter. On the other hand, in its
extraordinary concept, attorney’s fees may be awarded by
the court as indemnity for damages
17
to be paid by the losing
party to the prevailing party.
The issue in this case concerns attorney’s fees in the
ordinary concept. Generally, the amount of attorney’s fees
due is that stipulated in the retainer agreement which is
conclusive as to the amount of the lawyer’s compensation.
In the absence thereof, the amount of attorney’s fees is
fixed on the basis of quantum meruit, i.e., the reasonable
worth of the attorney’s services. Courts may ascertain also
if the attorney’s fees are found to be excessive, what is
reasonable under the circum­

_______________

16 Langkaan Realty Development, Inc v. United Coconut Planters Bank,

G.R. No. 139437, 8 December 2000, 347 SCRA 542, 549; Nokom v.
National Labor Relations Commission, 390 Phil. 1228, 1242­1243 (2000);
Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Embroidery and Garments Industries
(Phils.), Inc., 364 Phil. 541, 546­547; 305 SCRA 70, 74 (1999); Sta. Maria
v. Court of Appeals, 349 Phil. 275, 282­283; 285 SCRA 351, 357­358 (1998).
17 Traders Royal Bank Employees Union­Independent v. National Labor
Relations Commission, 336 Phil. 705, 717; 269 SCRA 733, 740 (1997).
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001586e2d576de825a6ef003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/18
11/17/2016 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 501

427

VOL. 501, SEPTEMBER 11, 2006 427

Bach vs. Ongkiko Kalaw Manhit & Acorda Law Offices

18
stances. In no case, however, must a lawyer be allowed to
recover more than what is reasonable, pursuant to Section
24, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, which provides:

“SEC. 24. Compensation of attorney’s fees; agreement as to fees.—

An attorney shall be entitled to have and recover from his client
no more than a reasonable compensation for his services, with a
view to the importance of the subject matter of the controversy,
the extent of the services rendered, and the professional standing
of the attorney. No court shall be bound by the opinion of
attorneys as expert witnesses as to the proper compensation, but
may disregard such testimony and base its conclusion on its own
professional knowledge. A written contract for services shall
control the amount to be paid therefor unless found by the
court to be unconscionable or unreasonable.” (Emphasis
supplied.)

We have identified the circumstances to be considered in

determining the reasonableness of a claim for attorney’s
fees as follows: (1) the amount and character of the service
rendered; (2) labor, time, and trouble involved; (3) the
nature and importance of the litigation or business in
which the services were rendered; (4) the responsibility
imposed; (5) the amount of money or the value of the
property affected by the controversy or involved in the
employment; (6) the skill and experience called for in the
performance of the services; (7) the professional character
and social standing of the attorney; (8) the results secured;
and (9) whether the fee is absolute or contingent, it being
recognized that an attorney may properly charge 19a much
larger fee when it is contingent than when it is not.
Rule 20.1, Canon 20 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility enumerates the following factors which
should guide a lawyer in determining his fees:

_______________

18 Sesbreno v. Court of Appeals, 314 Phil. 884, 894; 245 SCRA 30, 37
(1995).
19 Research and Services Realty, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 334 Phil. 652,
668; 266 SCRA 731, 746 (1997).

428

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001586e2d576de825a6ef003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/18
11/17/2016 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 501

428 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Bach vs. Ongkiko Kalaw Manhit & Acorda Law Offices

(a) the time spent and extent of services rendered or

required;
(b) the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved;
(c) the importance of the subject matter;
(d) the skill demanded;
(e) the probability of losing other employment as a
result of the 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.

In determining a reasonable fee to be paid to respondent as

compensation for their services on quantum meruit, based
on the factors abovequoted, it is proper to consider all the
facts and circumstances obtaining in this case.
It is undisputed that respondent firm had rendered
services as counsel for the petitioners in Civil Case No. 95­
244. The services rendered consist of the following:
20
1. Respondent was able to annotate a notice of lis
pendens on the property of Spouses Bach in
Caloocan City covered by TCT No. C­12112, thereby
preventing easy disposition of the property by
Luzviminda Bach;
21
2. Respondent was likewise able to annotate a notice
of lis pendens on the property of Spouses Bach in
Pasig City covered by TCT No. 48223, thereby
preventing disposition of the property by
Luzviminda Bach;

_______________

20 Records, Vol. 2, pp. 344­345.

21 Id., at pp. 338­339.

429

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001586e2d576de825a6ef003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/18
11/17/2016 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 501

VOL. 501, SEPTEMBER 11, 2006 429

Bach vs. Ongkiko Kalaw Manhit & Acorda Law Offices

22
3. Further, respondent annotated a notice of lis
pendens on the property of Spouses Bach in
Dasmariñas, Cavite covered by TCT No. T­339282,
thereby preventing disposition of the property by
Luzviminda Bach;
23
4. Additionally, respondent annotated a notice of lis
pendens on the property of Spouses Bach in Tanza,
Cavite, covered by TCT No. T­255263, thereby
preventing disposition of the property by
Luzviminda Bach;
5. Respondent
24
also worked on the annotation of the
notice of lis pendens on the property of Spouses
Bach in Makati, covered by TCT No. S­62541,
thereby preventing disposition of the property by
Luzviminda Bach;
6. Respondent worked on the annotation of a notice of
lis pendens on the property of Spouses Bach in
Dasmariñas, Cavite, covered by TCT No. T­380848,
thereby preventing disposition of the property by
Luzviminda Bach;
25
7. Respondent annotated a notice of lis pendens on
the property of Spouses Bach situated in Tagaytay
City, covered by TCT No. P­705, thereby preventing
disposition of the property by Luzviminda Bach;
26
8. Respondent filed the Petition for Declaration of
Nullity of Marriage and Dissolution of the Conjugal
Partnership of Gains of petitioner with his wife;
27
9. Respondent prepared an affidavit in favor of
petitioner attesting to the fact of petitioner’s
marriage and their properties acquired during his
marriage with Luzviminda Bach:

_______________

22 Id., at pp. 335­336.

23 Id., at pp. 332­333.
24 Id., at pp. 342­343.
25 Id., at pp. 430­341.
26 Id., at pp. 278­299.
27 Id., Exhibit “R­1,” pp. 384­395.

430

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001586e2d576de825a6ef003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/18
11/17/2016 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 501

430 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Bach vs. Ongkiko Kalaw Manhit & Acorda Law Offices

28
10. Respondent prepared an ex parte motion to declare
petitioner’s wife to have waived her right to file
answer for failure to file the same within the period
granted by law and to direct the public prosecutor
to determine whether or not a collusion exist;
29
11. Respondent prepared a Petition for appointment of
a receiver and to compel petitioner’s wife to render
an accounting;
12. Other services
30
included the filling of several
oppositions to certain motions filed by petitioner’s
wife;
31
13. Respondent filed a motion to set the case for
preliminary investigation;
32
14. Respondent filed an ex parte motion to declare
petitioner’s wife in default;
33
15. Respondent submitted a supplemental comment
on the motion for leave to withdraw funds from
Certificate of Participation filed by petitioner’s wife;
34
16. Respondent filed a manifestation and motion
praying the court to direct petitioner’s wife to
designate her lead counsel in the case;
35
17. Respondent prepared a Reply to comments on
opposition of petitioner;
36
18. Respondent was able to secure an Order from the
said court freezing the United Coconut Planters
Bank (UCPB)

_______________

28 Id., Exhibit “R­2,” pp. 396­397.

29 Id., Exhibit “R­3,” pp. 399­407.
30 Id., Exhibits “R­4,” pp. 408­413; “R­5,” pp. 414­417; “R­8,” pp. 423­
427; “R­9,” pp. 428­430; Exhibit “R­12,” pp. 438­440; and Exhibit “R­14,”
pp. 447­450.
31 Id., Exhibit “R­6,” pp. 418­419.
32 Id., Exhibit “R­7,” pp. 420­422.
33 Id., Exhibit “R­10,” pp 431­433.
34 Id., Exhibit “R­11,” pp. 434­437.
35 Id., Exhibit “R­13,” pp. 441­446.
36 Records, Vol. 2, p. 301.

431

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001586e2d576de825a6ef003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 12/18
11/17/2016 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 501

VOL. 501, SEPTEMBER 11, 2006 431

Bach vs. Ongkiko Kalaw Manhit & Acorda Law Offices

account in the name of petitioner’s wife,

Luzviminda Bach, containing about P6,500,000.00,
representing the balance of the proceeds from the
sale of their conjugal property in Pasig City;
19. Respondent represented petitioner in numerous
hearings in Civil Case No. 95­224, evidenced by the
signatures of the lawyers of respondent Law Firm
in the minutes dated 25 April 1995, 27 April, 1995,
14 June 1995, 27 June 1995, 1 August 1995, 11
August 1995, 22 September 1995, 10 October 1995,
17 October 1995, 1 December 1995, 7 December
37
1995, 29 March 1996 and 16 January 1997;
20. Conducted several preliminary and post litigation
conferences in the proceedings for preliminary
injunction leading to the freezing of the bank
account of the parties; and
21. Prepared and sent out numerous letters to third
parties and entities to protect the interest of
petitioner and notices to petitioner updating him of
the status of the case and the 38
courses of action
taken by respondent Law Firm.

In sum, the services rendered by the 39

respondent as
enumerated above and as admitted by Atty. Mario
Ongkiko during the ex parte hearing, consist of annotating
notice of lis pendens on the conjugal properties of petitioner
and his wife; filing the Petition for Declaration of Nullity of
Marriage; preparing and filing various pleadings and
documents relevant to the case; obtaining a freeze order of
petitioner’s funds in the UCPB; attending hearings in Civil
Case No. 05­224, and sending notices to petitioner updating
the latter of the status of the case. Nothing in Civil Case
No. 95­224 so far appears complicated and no
extraordinary skill was needed for lawyers of respondent
Law Firm to accomplish what they had done in the case
before they withdrew their appearance. We do not find
herein a situation so intricate that demands more

_______________

37 Id., at pp. 302­315.

38 Id., at pp. 324­380.
39 TSN, 10 September 2001, pp. 10­11.

432
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001586e2d576de825a6ef003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 13/18
11/17/2016 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 501

432 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Bach vs. Ongkiko Kalaw Manhit & Acorda Law Offices

than a careful scrutiny of the legal matters involved. These

are simply the normal duties of a lawyer that he is bound
by law to render to his clients with utmost fidelity for
which his client must not be burdened to pay an extra
price. It bears stressing that at the time respondent firm
withdrew their appearance due to policy differences with
petitioner, the case was still in its initial stage.
Guided by the above yardstick and so much of the
pertinent data as are extant in the records of this case and
in the exercise of our sound discretion, we hold that the
amount of P500,000.00 is a reasonable and fair
compensation for the legal services rendered by respondent
to the petitioner.
The imposition of legal interest on the amount payable
to private respondent as attorney’s fees is unwarranted.
Even as we agree that parties can freely stipulate on the
terms of payment, still the imposition of interest in the
payment of attorney’s fees40 is not justified. In the case41 of
Cortes v. Court of Appeals, we ruled that Article 2209 of
the Civil Code does not even justify the imposition of legal
interest on the payment of attorney’s fees as it is a
provision of law governing ordinary obligations and
contracts. It deleted the 6% interest imposed by the
appellate court on the payment of attorney’s fees. It
ratiocinated by 42citing Mambulao Lumber Co. v. Philippine
National Bank, thus:

“Contracts for attorney’s services in this jurisdiction

stands upon an entirely different footing from contracts
for the payment of compensation for any other services. x x
x [A]n attorney is not entitled in the absence of express contract
to recover

_______________

40 443 Phil. 42, 54; 395 SCRA 33, 41­42 (2003).

41 Art. 2209. If the obligation consists in the payment of a sum of
money, and the debtor incurs in delay, the indemnity for damages, there
being no stipulation to the contrary, shall be the payment of the interest
agreed upon, and in the absence of stipulation, the legal interest, which is
six percent per annum.
42 130 Phil. 366, 381­382; 22 SCRA 359, 371 (1968).

433

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001586e2d576de825a6ef003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 14/18
11/17/2016 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 501

VOL. 501, SEPTEMBER 11, 2006 433

Bach vs. Ongkiko Kalaw Manhit & Acorda Law Offices

more than a reasonable compensation for his services; and even

when an express contract is made, the court can ignore it and
limit the recovery to reasonable compensation if the amount of the
stipulated fee is found by the court to be unreasonable. This is a
very different rule from that announced in section 1091 of the
Civil Code with reference to the obligation of contracts in general,
where it is said that such obligation has the force of law between
the contracting parties. Had the plaintiff herein made an express
contract to pay his attorney an uncontingent fee of P2,115.25 for
the services to be rendered in reducing the note here in suit to
judgment, it would not have been enforced against him had he
seen fit to oppose it, as such a fee is obviously far greater than is
necessary to remunerate the attorney for the work involved and is
therefore unreasonable. In order to enable the court to ignore an
express contract for attorney’s fees, it is necessary to show, as in
other contracts, that it is contrary to morality or public
policy (Art. 1255, Civil Code). It is enough that it is
unreasonable or unconscionable.” (Emphases supplied.)

We have held that lawyering is not43 a moneymaking

venture and lawyers are not merchants. Law advocacy, it
has been stressed, is not capital that yields profits. The
returns it births are simple rewards for a job done or
service rendered. It is a calling that, unlike mercantile
pursuits which enjoy a greater deal of freedom from
governmental interference, is impressed with 44a public
interest, for which it is subject to State regulation.
A lawyer is not merely the defender of his client’s cause
and a trustee of his client’s cause of action and assets; he is
also, and first and foremost, an officer of the court and
participates in the45
fundamental function of administering
justice in society. It follows that a lawyer’s compensation
for profes­

_______________

43 Canon 1, Canons of Professional Ethics.

44 Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company v. Court of Appeals, 181 SCRA
367, 377, citing Canlas v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L­77691, 8 August
1988, 164 SCRA 160.
45 Pineda v. Atty. De Jesus, G.R. No. 155224, 23 August 2006, 499
SCRA 608.

434

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001586e2d576de825a6ef003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 15/18
11/17/2016 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 501

434 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Bach vs. Ongkiko Kalaw Manhit & Acorda Law Offices

sional services rendered are subject to the supervision of

the court, not just to guarantee that the fees he charges
and receives remain reasonable and commensurate with
the services rendered, but also to maintain the dignity and
integrity of the legal profession to which he belongs. Upon
taking his attorney’s oath as an officer of the court, a
lawyer submits himself to the authority of46the courts to
regulate his right to charge professional fees.
Though we reduced the award of attorney’s fees and
disallowed the imposition of interest thereon, the fact that
an attorney plays a vital role in the administration of
justice underscores the need to secure to him his
honorarium lawfully earned as a means to preserve the
decorum and respectability of the legal profession. A lawyer
is as much entitled to judicial protection against injustice,
imposition of fraud on the part of his client as the client
against abuse on the part of his counsel. The duty of the
court is not alone to see that a lawyer acts in a proper and
lawful manner; it is also its duty to see that a lawyer is
paid his just fees. With his capital consisting only of his
brains and with his skill acquired at tremendous cost not
only in money but in expenditure of time and energy, he is
entitled to the protection of any judicial tribunal against
any attempt on the part of his client to escape payment of
his just compensation. It would be ironic if after putting
forth the best in him to secure 47
justice for his client, he
himself would not get his due.
Thus, the Court of Appeals did not err in awarding
expenses of litigation. Article 2208, paragraphs 2, 5 and 11,
of the Civil Code, authorize the recovery of such fees “(2)
When the defendant’s act or omission has compelled the
plaintiff to litigate x x x or to incur expenses to protect his
interest; x x x (5) Where the defendant acted in gross and
evident bad faith

_______________

46 Sumaoang v. Judge, RTC, Br. XXXI, Guimba, Nueva Ecija, G.R. No.
78173, 26 October 1992, 215 SCRA 136, 143.
47 Agpalo, LEGAL ETHICS (4th Ed., 1989), pp. 302­303.

435

VOL. 501, SEPTEMBER 11, 2006 435

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001586e2d576de825a6ef003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 16/18
11/17/2016 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 501

Bach vs. Ongkiko Kalaw Manhit & Acorda Law Offices

in refusing to satisfy the plaintiff’s plainly valid, just and

demandable claim; x x x and (11) In any other case where
the court deems it just and equitable that attorney’s fees
and expenses of litigation should be recovered.”
Considering the fact that respondent was drawn into this
litigation by petitioner to protect and defend their interest
and taking into account the services already rendered by
respondent to petitioner, the sum of P30,000.00 as
expenses of litigation and cost of suit would be reasonable
under the premises.
WHEREFORE, the Decision appealed from is
AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATIONS to the effect that the
attorney’s fees awarded to respondent is REDUCED to
P500,000.00, the legal interest of 2% on the amount due to
respondent is DELETED, and the award of litigation
expenses is REDUCED to P30,000.00.
SO ORDERED.

          Panganiban (C.J., Chairperson), Ynares­Santiago,

Austria­Martinez and Callejo, Sr., JJ., concur.

Judgment affirmed with modifications.

Notes.—An award of attorney’s fees must have a

factual, legal or equitable justification and cannot be left to
speculation and conjecture. (Mateo vs. Diaz, 374 SCRA 33
[2002])
Attorney’s fees may be awarded when a party is
compelled to litigate or incur expenses to protect his
interest by reason of an unjustified act of the other party.
(Terminal Facilities and Services Corporation vs.
Philippine Ports Authority, 378 SCRA 82 [2002])

——o0o——

436

© Copyright 2016 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001586e2d576de825a6ef003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 17/18
11/17/2016 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 501

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001586e2d576de825a6ef003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 18/18