Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 47 views

    Harden

    Uploaded by

    Jan Nikka Estefani
    - Mrs. Harden hired attorney Recto to help increase her spousal support from her husband Mr. Harden and protect her rights in their conjugal property as she intended to file for divorce. - Recto's contract stipulated he would receive 25% of any increased support, fees from litigation expenses, and 20% of her share of any conjugal property proceeds. - The court case involved disputes over the conjugal property businesses and assets worth an estimated $4 million. Recto sought $386,000 in legal fees and expenses. - The court ruled the contract was valid and did not bind the conjugal partnership. Contingency fees are also allowed in the Philippines. It awarded Recto

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Harden

    Uploaded by

    Jan Nikka Estefani
    47 views10 pages
    - Mrs. Harden hired attorney Recto to help increase her spousal support from her husband Mr. Harden and protect her rights in their conjugal property as she intended to file for divorce. - Recto's contract stipulated he would receive 25% of any increased support, fees from litigation expenses, and 20% of her share of any conjugal property proceeds. - The court case involved disputes over the conjugal property businesses and assets worth an estimated $4 million. Recto sought $386,000 in legal fees and expenses. - The court ruled the contract was valid and did not bind the conjugal partnership. Contingency fees are also allowed in the Philippines. It awarded Recto

    Original Description:

    Harden

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    - Mrs. Harden hired attorney Recto to help increase her spousal support from her husband Mr. Harden and protect her rights in their conjugal property as she intended to file for divorce. - Recto's contract stipulated he would receive 25% of any increased support, fees from litigation expenses, and 20% of her share of any conjugal property proceeds. - The court case involved disputes over the conjugal property businesses and assets worth an estimated $4 million. Recto sought $386,000 in legal fees and expenses. - The court ruled the contract was valid and did not bind the conjugal partnership. Contingency fees are also allowed in the Philippines. It awarded Recto

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
    47 views10 pages

    Harden

    Uploaded by

    Jan Nikka Estefani
    - Mrs. Harden hired attorney Recto to help increase her spousal support from her husband Mr. Harden and protect her rights in their conjugal property as she intended to file for divorce. - Recto's contract stipulated he would receive 25% of any increased support, fees from litigation expenses, and 20% of her share of any conjugal property proceeds. - The court case involved disputes over the conjugal property businesses and assets worth an estimated $4 million. Recto sought $386,000 in legal fees and expenses. - The court ruled the contract was valid and did not bind the conjugal partnership. Contingency fees are also allowed in the Philippines. It awarded Recto

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
    of 10

    RECTO VS.

    HARDEN, 100
    PHIL 427, 1956
    She engaged the services of Atty. Recto for the
    purpose of securing an increase in the amount of her
    support from her husband Mr. (Fred) Harden and for the
    purpose of protecting and preserving her right in the
    properties of the conjugal partnership, in contemplation
    of a divorce suit which she intended to file in the Court of
    California
    • 25% of whatever increase in support she will
    get from Mr. (Fred) Harden
    • Attorney’s fees charged as expenses of
    litigation
    • 20% of her share and participation which he
    may receive in the funds and properties of
    the conjugal partnership
    • Mrs. Harden be given the exclusive administration of all businesses and
    property of the conjugal partnership OR that defendants inform Mrs.
    Harden of everything pertaining to the businesses and property of the
    conjugal partnership
    • That Mr. Harden account and return to the PH sums of money he withdrew
    and sent to HK
    • That transfers of shares of stock in the name of 3 rd persons and the
    administrator Salumbides be cancelled and returned to the conjugal
    partnership
    • That a writ of preliminary injunction be issued against the defendant to
    prevent them from disposing of the property and businesses of the
    conjugal partnership
    • Declaring the value of the conjugal partnership at around P4Million.
    • Ordering that a conjugal lien be annotated in the TCT of a parcel of land in
    QC, of certain shares of stock, which will say that any alienation of Mr.
    Harden will be invalid for lack of consent of Mrs. Harden
    • Increasing the allowance of both Mr. and Mrs. Harden to P2500 from the
    previous P1500/month
    • Ordering Mr. (Fred) Harden to inform Mrs. Harden of all property and
    businesses belonging to the conjugal partnership
    • That a receiver be appointed to prevent Mr. Harden and Salumbides from
    disposing of the property despite the writ of preliminary injunction
    • A settlement agreement between Mister and
    Mrs. Harden for the sum of P5,000
    • That a trust fund was created by Mr. Harden
    from which a monthly pension of P500/month
    would be taken
    • The receiver appointed continue his functions
    • He be declared entitled to the sum of P400,000 a his
    fees for services rendered
    • That the cases above continue since the receivership
    is based on these cases, and that such cases are
    important to safeguard his attorney’ fees
    • That Mrs. Harden cannot bind the conjugal partnership
    by the said Contract of Service without Mr. Harden’s
    consent
    • That Article 1491 of the Civil Code prohibits contingent
    fees
    • That the Contract of Service has for its purpose securing
    a decree of divorce allegedly in violation of Articles
    1305, 1352, and 1409 of Civil Code.
    • Terms of the said Contract of Service are harsh,
    inequitable and oppressive
    ISSUE:

    Whether Atty. Recto was entitled to P386,000


    HELD:

    • The Contract of Service does not seek to bind the conjugal


    partnership
    • It has already been held that contingent fees are not
    prohibited in the Philippines and are impliedly sanctioned by
    the Philippines’ Cannon of Professional Ethics.
    • They are both US citizens, so divorce is allowed
    • One who ask for equity must come with clean hands as well

    You might also like