[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
352 views1 page

Cortez Vs Cortes

1) Eugenio Cortez filed an illegal dismissal case against his former employer and was represented by his relative, Atty. Hernando Cortes. 2) The court awarded Cortez PHP 1.1 million which was to be paid in staggered checks. However, when Cortez tried to withdraw the money, Cortes insisted they split it 50-50 even though they did not have an express agreement. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that Cortes violated the Code of Professional Responsibility by demanding an excessive contingent fee without a clear agreement and treated the legal profession as a business rather than a service, showing infidelity to the principles of the profession.

Uploaded by

Belle Frances Timosa
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
352 views1 page

Cortez Vs Cortes

1) Eugenio Cortez filed an illegal dismissal case against his former employer and was represented by his relative, Atty. Hernando Cortes. 2) The court awarded Cortez PHP 1.1 million which was to be paid in staggered checks. However, when Cortez tried to withdraw the money, Cortes insisted they split it 50-50 even though they did not have an express agreement. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that Cortes violated the Code of Professional Responsibility by demanding an excessive contingent fee without a clear agreement and treated the legal profession as a business rather than a service, showing infidelity to the principles of the profession.

Uploaded by

Belle Frances Timosa
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Eugenio Cortez vs. Atty. Hernando Cortes, A.C. No.

9119 March 12, 2018


FACTS:

 In this case, Atty Hernando Cortes represented Eugenio Cortez who is the complainant in
an illegal dismissal case against Philippine Explosives Corporation. Eugenio Cortes
alleged that they had a handshake agreement with 12 percent as the contingency fee and
attorney’s fees.
 The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the NLRC which was to pay Eugenio
Cortes a total of PHP 1,100,000 in three staggered payments through checks. When the
complainant (Eugenio Cortes) was about to withdraw, the bank teller doing the
transaction was held off by Atty. Cortez because allegedly according to the atty, they had
agreed to split the reward with a 50-50 basis.
ISSUE:

 Whether or not the acts complained of constituted a misconduct on the part of Atty.
Cortes.
RULING:

 “A contingent fee arrangement is valid in this jurisdiction and is generally


recognized as valid and binding but must be laid down in an express contract.”
 In this case, we note that the parties did not have an express contract as regards the
payment of fees. In the absence thereof, the attorney's fees is fixed on the basis
of quantum meruit- the reasonable worth of the attorney’s services.
 Supreme Court ruled that Atty violated Canon 20 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility which stated the reasonable guide for a lawyer in determining his fees.
 The court held that the contingent fee claimed by Atty. Cortes was, under the facts of this
case, is grossly excessive. The issues involved are not novel and Atty. Cortes in fact
already knew that complainant was already hard up.
o Hence, it was clear that Atty. Cortes insisted on the fifty-fifty share arrangement knowing
that the complainant is his relative. He treated the legal profession as a trade or business, in
which the SC has held that lawyering is not a moneymaking venture and lawyers are not
merchants. Law advocacy, is not capital that yields profits.  If the Law has to remain an
honorable profession, those enrolled in its ranks should, by their lives, accord continuing
fidelity to the tenets and principles.

You might also like