G.R. No.

155224 August 23, 2006

VINSON B. PINEDA, Petitioner,

DECISION

CORONA, J.:

The subject of this petition for review is the April 30, 2002 decision1 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV
No. 68080 which modified the order2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City, Branch 151, in JDRC
Case No. 2568 entitled Ma. Aurora D. Pineda v. Vinson B. Pineda.

The facts follow.

On April 6, 1993, Aurora Pineda filed an action for declaration of nullity of marriage against petitioner
Vinson Pineda in the RTC of Pasig City, Branch 151, docketed as JDRC Case No. 2568. Petitioner was
represented by respondents Attys. Clodualdo de Jesus, Carlos Ambrosio and Emmanuel Mariano.

During the pendency of the case, Aurora proposed a settlement to petitioner regarding her visitation rights
over their minor child and the separation of their properties. The proposal was accepted by petitioner and
both parties subsequently filed a motion for approval of their agreement. This was approved by the trial
court. On November 25, 1998, the marriage between petitioner and Aurora Pineda was declared null and
void.

Throughout the proceedings, respondent counsels were well-compensated. 3 They, including their relatives
and friends, even availed of free products and treatments from petitioners dermatology clinic. This
notwithstanding, they billed petitioner additional legal fees amounting to P16.5 million4 which the latter,
however, refused to pay. Instead, petitioner issued them several checks totaling P1.12 million5 as "full
payment for settlement."6

Still not satisfied, respondents filed in the same trial court7 a motion

for payment of lawyers fees for P50 million.8

On April 14, 2000, the trial court ordered petitioner to pay P5 million to Atty. de Jesus, P2 million to Atty.
Ambrosio and P2 million to Atty. Mariano.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals reduced the amount as follows: P1 million to Atty. de Jesus, P500,000 to
Atty. Ambrosio and P500,000 to Atty. Mariano. The motion for reconsideration was denied. Hence, this
recourse.

The issues raised in this petition are:

(1) whether the Pasig RTC, Branch 151 had jurisdiction over the claim for additional legal fees and

(2) whether respondents were entitled to additional legal fees.

First, a lawyer may enforce his right to his fees by filing the necessary petition as an incident of the main
action in which his services were rendered or in an independent suit against his client. The former is
preferable to avoid multiplicity of suits.9
The Pasig RTC, Branch 151, where the case for the declaration of nullity of marriage was filed, had
jurisdiction over the motion for the payment of legal fees. Respondents sought to collect P50 million which
was equivalent to 10% of the value of the properties awarded to petitioner in that case. Clearly, what
respondents were demanding was additional payment for legal services rendered in the same case.

Second, the professional engagement between petitioner and respondents was governed by the principle
of quantum meruit which means "as much as the lawyer deserves." 10 The recovery of attorneys fees on this
basis is permitted, as in this case, where there is no express agreement for the payment of attorneys fees.
Basically, it is a legal mechanism which prevents an unscrupulous client from running away with the fruits
of the legal services of counsel without paying for it. In the same vein, it avoids unjust enrichment on the
part of the lawyer himself.

Further, Rule 20.4 of the Code of Professional Responsibility advises lawyers to avoid controversies with
clients concerning their compensation and to resort to judicial action only to prevent imposition, injustice or
fraud. Suits to collect fees should be avoided and should be filed only when circumstances force lawyers to
resort to it.11

In the case at bar, respondents motion for payment of their lawyers fees was not meant to collect what was
justly due them; the fact was, they had already been adequately paid.

Demanding P50 million on top of the generous sums and perks already given to them was an act of
unconscionable greed which is shocking to this Court.

As lawyers, respondents should be reminded that they are members of an honorable profession, the primary
vision of which is justice. It is respondents despicable behavior which gives lawyering a bad name in the
minds of some people. The vernacular has a word for it: nagsasamantala. The practice of law is a decent
profession and not a money-making trade. Compensation should be but a mere incident.12

Respondents claim for additional legal fees was not justified. They could not charge petitioner a fee based
on percentage, absent an express agreement to that effect. The payments to them in cash, checks, free
products and services from petitioners business all of which were not denied by respondents more
than sufficed for the work they did. The "full payment for settlement" 13 should have discharged petitioners
obligation to them.

The power of this Court to reduce or even delete the award of attorneys fees cannot be denied. Lawyers are
officers of the Court and they participate in the fundamental function of administering justice. 14 When they
took their oath, they submitted themselves to the authority of the Court and subjected their professional fees
to judicial control. 15

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby PARTIALLY GRANTED. The decision of the Court of Appeals
dated April 30, 2002 in CAG.R. CV No. 68080 is hereby MODIFIED. The award of additional attorneys
fees in favor of respondents is hereby DELETED.

SO ORDERED.
Legal Ethics; Attorneys; Actions; A lawyer may enforce his right to his fees by filing the
necessary petition as an incident of the main action in which his services were rendered or in
an independent suit against his client.A lawyer may enforce his right to his fees by filing the
necessary petition as an incident of the main action in which his services were rendered or in
an independent suit against his client. The former is preferable to avoid multiplicity of suits.
The Pasig RTC, Branch 151, where the case for the declaration of nullity of marriage was filed,
had jurisdiction over the motion for the payment of legal fees. Respondents sought to collect
P50 million which was equivalent to 10% of the value of the properties awarded to petitioner
in that case. Clearly, what respondents were demanding was additional payment for legal
services rendered in the same case.

Same; Same; Same; Quantum Meruit; The recovery of attorneys fees on the basis of quantum
meruit is permitted where there is no express agreement for the payment of attorneys fees,
and it is basically a legal mechanism which prevents an unscrupulous client from running
away with the fruits of the legal services of counsel without paying for it while avoiding unjust
enrichment on the part of the lawyer himself.The professional engagement between
petitioner and respondents was governed by the principle of quantum meruit which means
as much as the lawyer deserves. The recovery of attorneys fees on this basis is permitted,
as in this case, where there is no express agreement for the payment of attorneys fees.
Basically, it is a legal mechanism which prevents an unscrupulous client from running away
with the fruits of the legal services of counsel without paying for it. In the same vein, it avoids
unjust enrichment on the part of the lawyer himself. Pineda vs. De Jesus, 499 SCRA 608, G.R.
No. 155224 August 23, 2006

Same; Same; Same; Suits to collect fees should be avoided and should be filed only when
circumstances force lawyers to resort to it; Demanding P50 million on top of the generous
sums and perks already given to them was an act of unconscionable greed which is shocking
to this Court.Rule 20.4 of the Code of Professional Responsibility advises lawyers to avoid
controversies with clients concerning their compensation and to resort to judicial action only
to prevent imposition, injustice or fraud. Suits to collect fees should be avoided and should be
filed only when circumstances force lawyers to resort to it. In the case at bar, respondents
motion for payment of their lawyers fees was not meant to collect what was justly due them;
the fact was, they had already been adequately paid. Demanding P50 million on top of the
generous sums and perks already given to them was an act of unconscionable greed which is
shocking to this Court.
Same; Same; The practice of law is a decent profession and not a money-making trade
compensation should be but a mere incident.As lawyers, respondents should be reminded
that they are members of an honorable profession, the primary vision of which is justice. It is
respondents despicable behavior which gives lawyering a bad name in the minds of some
people. The vernacular has a word for it: nagsasamantala. The practice of law is a decent
profession and not a money-making trade. Compensation should be but a mere incident.

Same; Same; Lawyers could not charge their clients a fee based on percentage absent an
express agreement to that effect.Respondents claim for additional legal fees was not
justified. They could not charge petitioner a fee based on percentage, absent an express
agreement to that effect. The payments to them in cash, checks, free products and services
from petitioners businessall of which were not denied by respondentsmore than sufficed
for the work they did. The full payment for settlement should have discharged petitioners
obligation to them.