Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 124074 January 27, 1997
RESEARCH and SERVICES REALTY, INC., petitioner,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS and MANUEL S. FONACIER, JR., respondents.
DAVIDE, JR., J.:
This petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court questions the propriety of the award for, and the reasonableness of the amount of, attorney's fees granted in favor of the private respondent by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City, Branch 64,1 in Civil Case No. 612,2 which the Court of Appeals affirmed in its decision3 of 31 March 1995 in CA-G.R. CV No. 44839.
The undisputed facts are as follows:
On 3 November 1969, the petitioner entered into a Joint Venture Agreement with Jose, Fidel, and Antonia Carreon. Under the said agreement, the petitioner undertook to develop, subdivide, administer, and promote the sale of the parcels of land owned by the Carreons. The proceeds of the sale of the lots were to be paid to the Philippine National Bank (PNB) for the landowner's mortgage obligation, and the net profits to be shared by the contracting parties on a 50-50 basis.
On 4 April 1983, the Carreons and a certain Patricio C. Sarile instituted before the RTC of Makati City an action against the petitioner for rescission of the Joint Venture Agreement. They prayed therein that pending the hearing of the case, a writ of preliminary injunction be issued to enjoin the petitioner from selling the lots subject of the agreement and that after hearing, the writ be made permanent; the agreement be rescinded; and the petitioner be ordered to pay the PNB the stipulated 15% per annum of the outstanding obligation and to pay the plaintiffs attorney's fees, exemplary damages, expenses of litigation, and costs of suit. This case was docketed as Civil Case No. 612 at Branch 64 of the said court.
In its answer, which was prepared and signed by Atty. Apolonio G. Reyes, the petitioner sought the denial of the writ of preliminary injunction, the dismissal of the complaint, and payment in its favor of (a) P10 million by way of actual damages; (b) P5 million by way of return to the petitioner of the amount advanced to the Carreons, payments to the PNB, and cost of the work on the subdivision; (c) P100,000.00 by way of exemplary damages; (d) any and all damages up to the amount of P4,638,420.00 which the petitioner may suffer under the terms of its Performance Bond in favor of the National Housing Authority; (e) P50,000.00 as attorney's fees; and (f) costs of suit.
On 9 April 1985, the petitioner engaged the services of private respondent Atty. Manuel S. Fonacier, Jr.,4 who then entered his appearance in Civil Case No. 612.
While the said case was pending, or on 24 July 1992, the petitioner, without the knowledge of the private respondent, entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)5 with another land developer, Filstream International, Inc. (hereinafter Filstream). Under this MOA, the former assigned its rights and obligations under the Joint Venture Agreement in favor of the latter for a consideration of P28 million, payable within twenty-four months.
On 31 March 1993, the petitioner terminated the legal services of the private respondent. At the time the petitioner had already received P7 million from Filstream.
Upon knowing the existence of the MOA, the private respondent filed in Civil Case No. 612 an Urgent Motion to Direct Payment of Attorney's Fees and/or Register Attorney's Charging Lien praying, among other things, that the petitioner be ordered to pay him the sum of P700,000.00 as his contingent fee in the case.6
After hearing the motion, the trial court issued an order dated 11 October 1993 directing the petitioner to pay the private respondent the sum of P600,000.00 as attorney's fees on the basis of quantum meruit.
The trial court justified the award in this manner:
Insofar as material to the resolution of this Motion the records of this case show that movant Atty. Fonacier became the counsel of defendant Research in May 1985 while this case has been in progress. (Records, p. 770). By this time also, the defendant Research has been enjoined by the Court from executing Contracts To Sell involving Saranay Homes Subdivision. . . . (Order dated December 3, 1984, Records pp. 625-626). However, the said counsel for defendant Research prepared for the latter various pleadings and represented it in Court (See Records after May 1985). Until his services were terminated the lawyer client relationship between Atty. Fonacier and Research was governed by a "contract" embodied in a letter addressed to Atty. Fonacier on April 19, 1985 [sic], the pertinent portion of which is reproduced below, as follows. . . .
xxx xxx xxx
Soon after said letter, cases were referred to him including this case. In accordance with their agreement, there were instances that Research gave Atty. Fonacier ten (10%) percent of the amount received as the latter's attorney's fees pursuant to their agreement.
The instant case in which defendant is praying to be awarded attorney's fees, is an action for rescission of the Joint Venture Agreement between plaintiffs, Patricio Sarile, et al., as owners of a parcel of land and defendant Research & Service Realty, Inc., as developer of the land. At the time Atty. Fonacier entered his appearance as counsel for defendant Research, the Court has issued a preliminary injunction against Research. Thus all developmental and commercial activities of defendant had to stop. In this regard, Atty. Fonacier did spade work towards persuading the plaintiffs to agree to the relaxation of the effects of the injunction to pave the way to a negotiation with a third-party, the Filstream. Atty. Fonacier's efforts were complemented by the efforts of his counterpart in the plaintiff's side. The third-party Filstream Inc., became the assignee of defendant Research. In this connection, a memorandum of agreement was entered into between them. By the terms of agreement, defendant Research will be receiving from the third-party Filstream International, Inc. (Filstream) the following amount. . . .
xxx xxx xxx
The termination of the legal services of Atty. Fonacier was made definite on March 31, 1993 at which time the Memorandum of Agreement which Research entered into with Filstream, Inc., has already been effective. By this time also, defendant Research has already received the first two stipulated consideration of the agreement in the total sum of Six Million (P6,000,000.00). The necessary and legal consequence of said "Memorandum of Agreement" is the termination of the case insofar as plaintiff Patricio Sarile, et al. and defendant Research is concerned. The conclusion of the Memorandum of Agreement insofar as the cause of Research is concerned, is a legal victory for defendant Research. What could have been a loss in investment has been turned to a legal victory. Atty. Fonacier's effort contributed to defendant's victory, albeit outside the Court which would not have been possible without the legal maneuvering of a lawyer.
The dismissal of the case before this Court will come in a matter of time considering that plaintiffs, with the assumption by the third party, Filstream Inc., of what were supposed to be the obligations to them of defendant Research pursuant to their Joint Venture Agreement, is no longer interested in pursuing the rescission.
It is a matter of record that Atty. Fonacier is the last of the three lawyers who handled this case. Moreover it is Atty. Fonacier who contributed to the forging of the memorandum of agreement as testified to by Atty. Rogel Atienza one of the two retained counsels of plaintiffs.
Considering the importance which is attached to this case, certainly it would not be fair for Atty. Fonacier if his attorney's fees in this case would be equated only to the measly monthly allowance of (P800.00) Pesos and office space and other office facilities provided by defendant Research. Ten (10%) per cent of the amount which Research had received from Filstream at the time of the termination of a lawyer-client relationship between Atty. Fonacier and Research or P600,000.00 will be a just and equitable compensation for Atty. Fonacier's legal services, by way of quantum meruit (See Cabildo v. Provincial Treasurer, Ilocos Norte, et al., 54 SCRA 26).7
In its Order8 of 12 January 1994, the trial court denied the petitioner's motion for reconsideration of the above order.
The petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals. In its Appellant's
Brief, 9 the petitioner alleged that the private respondent was not entitled to attorney's fees under the retainer contract. Moreover, the private respondent did not exert any effort to amicably settle the case, nor was he even present during the negotiations for the settlement of the same. There was, therefore, no legal and factual justification for the private respondent's "fantastic and unreasonable claim for attorney's fees of P600,000.00.
On the other hand, the private respondent asserted that he was assured by the petitioner that non-collection cases were included in the contingent fee arrangement specified in the retainer contract wherein there was to be contingent compensation for any award arising from any lawsuit handled by him. According to him, Civil Case No. 612 was not the only "non-collection" case he handled for the petitioner. There was a "right of way" dispute where the petitioner was awarded P50,000.00, and the latter paid him P5,000.00, or 10% of the award as attorney's fees. He thus stressed that since under the memorandum of agreement the petitioner was to receive P28 million, he should be entitled to 10% thereof or P2.8 million as attorney's fees.
In its decision 10 of 31 March 1995, the Court of Appeals affirmed the challenged order of the trial court. It ratiocinated as follows:
Movant-appellee, on the other hand, correctly argues that it was the clear intention of appellant and counsel to compensate the latter for any legal services rendered by him to the former. Stated otherwise, it was never the intention of the parties in the instant appeal that counsel's services shall be free or to be rendered ex gratia.
xxx xxx xxx
It must in addition be underscored that the retainer contract of April 9, 1985 is the law that governs the relationship between appellant and appellee. In fact, the following provisions squarely and categorically supports the award of P600,000.00 to counsel, to wit:
Minimal allowance of P800 per month plus contingent fees and collection cases (case to case basis) aside from the attorney's fee recovered from any law suit.
(Paragraph 3, Retainer Contract)
In an American jurisprudence on this point cited in local annotation on the Canon of Professional Ethics, it was held that "if a lawyer renders valuable services to one who receives the benefits thereof, a promise to pay a reasonable value is presumed, unless such services were intended to be gratuitous" (Young vs. Buere, 78 Cal. Am. 127). In effect, to compensate a lawyer, we are faced with the pivotal question: "was the legal services intended to be free or not?" If it is not free, then, appellant must simply pay. The 10% contingent fee of the amount collected and/or to be collected in Civil Case No. 612 of the lower court, is, to Our mind fair and reasonable. As ruled by the Supreme Court in the case of Cosmopolitan Insurance Co. vs. Angel Reyes (G.R. L-20199, Nov. 23, 1965) 15% was even deemed reasonable. 11
The petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration 12 on the ground, among other things, that the decision is contrary to the evidence, as the trial court granted the claim for attorney's fees based on quantum meruit, yet, the Court of Appeals granted the same on a contingent basis which it based on an erroneous quotation and comprehension of the following provision of the retainer contract:
Minimal allowance of P800.00 per month plus contingent fees on collection cases (case to case basis) aside from the attorney's fees recovered from any law suit. (emphasis ours) 13
In its decision, the Court of Appeals substituted the word "on" after "contingent fees" with the word "and". Under the aforequoted paragraph, the private respondent was entitled to attorney's fees on contingent basis in collection cases only. In non-collection cases, he was entitled only to the attorney's fees that might be recovered in the lawsuit. 14 Since Civil Case No. 612 is not a collection case but an action for rescission of a contract, then the aforequoted paragraph is not applicable as a basis for awarding attorney's fees to the private respondent. 15
Finding nothing new in the motion for reconsideration, the Court of Appeals denied it in the resolution 16 of 15 February 1996.
The petitioner then came to us via this petition for review wherein it contends that
I
RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS HAD DECIDED THE CASE NOT IN ACCORD WITH LAW AND THE UNDISPUTED FACTS OF THE CASE.
II
RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN AWARDING ON CONTINGENT BASIS RESPONDENT-APPELLEE'S ATTORNEY'S FEES ON THE BASIS OF A MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT IN WHICH HE HAD NO PARTICIPATION IN THE NEGOTIATION AND PREPARATION THEREOF.
III
RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN AWARDING EXCESSIVE AND UNREASONABLE ATTORNEY'S FEES.
IV
THE TRIAL COURT AND THE RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS HAVE NO JURISDICTION TO SATISFY ATTORNEY'S CHARGING LIEN ON A SUM OF MONEY THAT THE COURT HAD NO AUTHORITY TO DISPOSE OF AND OVER WHICH THE TRIAL COURT HAD MADE NO FINAL ADJUDICATION.
The petitioner's more important argument in support of the first error is the Court of Appeals' misquotation of the provision in the retainer contract regarding attorney's fees on contingent basis, which the petitioner had stressed in its motion for reconsideration. The petitioner maintains that under the contract, attorney's fees on contingent basis could only be awarded in collection cases, and Civil Case No. 612 is not a collection case. Hence, the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the award on that basis, while the trial court was correct in applying the principle of quantum meruit.
In its second assigned error, the petitioner asserts that the private respondent admitted in his Urgent Motion to Direct Payment of Attorney's Fees and/or Register Attorney's Charging Lien that he had not participated in the negotiations and preparation of the memorandum of agreement, thus:
Despite the dishonest concealment, by the light of Providence coupled with a streak of good luck, counsel discovered in the first week of March 1993 that the parties had respectively entered into a meaningful agreement with a third-party as early as July 27, 1992, which in the case of client, case in the form of a "Memorandum of Agreement" (MOA). . . . 17
The third assigned error is but a logical consequence of the second, and the petitioner maintains that since the private respondent "did not do anything spectacular or out of the ordinary" in Civil Case No. 612, "except to ask for the suspension or postponement of the proceedings thereof from 1985 to 1993," the P600,000.00 attorney's fees, whether on contingent basis or quantum meruit, is excessive and unreasonable.
In the fourth imputed error, the petitioner argues that the memorandum of agreement was never submitted to the trial court, and the trial court never made any disposition or adjudication over the proceeds of the said agreement. What would eventually happen then is the dismissal of Civil Case No. 612, as the trial court itself had intimated in its challenged order. Necessarily then, there would be no money adjudication in favor of the petitioner as the defendant therein. Since such lien is collectible only from an award of money that a court would adjudicate in a judgment rendered in favor of the attorney's client pursuant to Section 37, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, it would follow that no attorney's charging lien could be validly entered.
We uphold the petitioner, but not necessarily on the strength of its arguments.
The parties are in agreement that the lawyer-client relationship between the petitioner and the private respondent, Atty. Manuel S. Fonacier, Jr., was governed by a retainer contract dated 9 April 1985. The petitioner's undertakings thereunder are outlined as follows:
I. CORPORAT[ION]:
I. Corporation will provide the following:
a. Office space — air conditioned
b. Furnishings, tables, executive chairs, visitor's chair & steel filing cabinet
c. Telephone facilities and partial secretarial services.
2. Legal service referrals by the corporation to its clients for additional income of the lawyer.
3. Minimal allowance of P800 per month plus contingent fees on contingent fees on collection cases (case to case basis) aside from the attorney's fees recovered from any lawsuit.
4. That in case of legal problems to be attended to outside Metro Manila and Suburbs, the corporation shall defray expenses for transportation, lodging and other legal expenses incidental in the case. 18
An analysis of the contract clearly shows that it was a general retainer, since its primary purpose was to secure beforehand the services of the private respondent for any legal problem which might afterward arise. 19 The fixed retaining fee was P800.00 a month. A retaining fee is a preliminary fee paid to ensure and secure a lawyer's future services, to remunerate him for being deprived, by being retained by one party, of the opportunity of rendering services to the other party and of receiving pay from him. In the absence of an agreement to the contrary, the retaining fee is neither made nor received in consideration of the services contemplated; it is apart from what the client has agreed to pay for the services which he has retained him to perform. 20
In the retainer contract in question, there was no intention to make the retaining fee as the attorney's fees for the services contemplated. This is evident from the provision allowing additional attorney's fees in collection cases consisting of (1) a "contingent fee" and (2) whatever the petitioner might recover as attorney's fees in each case. The latter could only refer to the attorney's fees which the court might award to the petitioner in appropriate cases.
While the contract did not mention non-collection cases, it is, nevertheless, clear therefrom that such cases were not excluded from the retainership, as borne out by the provision requiring the private respondent to "make appearances in court for cases involving the corporation or any allied cases pertaining to the latter." As to such cases, there was no specific stipulation of additional attorney's fees. Nevertheless, nothing therein shows that the private respondent agreed to render professional service in such cases gratuitously. The absence then of the stipulation of additional attorney's fees cannot be construed as a bar to the collection of additional attorney's fees in non-collection cases.
Two basic principles come into play. The first is as stated earlier, viz., that the retaining fee is neither made nor received in consideration of the services contemplated unless the contract itself so provides. The second is that, unless expressly stipulated, rendition of professional services by a lawyer is for a fee or compensation and is not gratuitous. This is implicit from the opening clause of Section 24, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, which states that "[an] attorney shall be entitled to have and recover from his client no more than a reasonable compensation for his services. . . ," and by virtue of the innominate contract of facio ut des (I do and you give), as enunciated by this Court in Corpus v. Court of Appeals, 21 thus:
Moreover, the payment of attorney's fees . . . may also be justified by virtue of the innominate contract of facio ut des (I do and you give) which is based on the principle that "no one shall unjustly enrich himself at the expense of another." Innominate contracts have been elevated to a codal provision in the New Civil Code by providing under Article 1307 that such contracts shall be regulated by the stipulations of the parties, by the general provisions or principles of obligations and contracts, by the rules governing the most analogous nominate contracts, and by the customs of the people. The rationale of this article was stated in the 1903 case of Perez vs. Pomar (2 Phil. 682).
In Perez v. Pomar, 22 this Court stated:
[B]ut whether the plaintiffs services were solicited or whether they were offered to the defendant for his assistance, inasmuch as these services were accepted and made use of by the latter, we must consider that there was a tacit and mutual consent as to the rendition of the services. This gives rise to the obligation upon the person benefited by the services to make compensation therefor, since the bilateral obligation to render service as interpreter, on the one hand, and on the other to pay for the services rendered, is thereby incurred. (Arts. 1088, 1089, and 1262 of the Civil Code).
Accordingly, as to non-collection cases where the petitioner was either a plaintiff or a defendant, the private respondent could still collect attorney's fees, apart from his regular retaining fee, on the basis of any supplemental agreement or, in its absence, under the principle of quantum meruit. There was no such supplemental agreement in this case.
We cannot sustain the private respondent's theory that he could collect attorney's fees on contingent basis because in the other "non-collection" cases he handled for the petitioner, he was paid on contingent basis at the rate of 10% of what was awarded to the petitioner. In the first place, Civil Case No. 612 is still unresolved, and no judgment has yet been rendered in favor of the petitioner. The amount in the memorandum of agreement could not be made the basis of a "contingent fee" in the said case for at least three reasons. First, in his own Urgent Motion to Direct Payment of Attorney's Fees and/or Register Attorney's Charging Lien, the private respondent based the contingent fee not only in Civil Case No. 612 but in a "multitude of peripheral cases," and the contingent fee would become due and collectible only if and when the petitioner obtains a judgment in his favor in Civil Case No. 612. The second paragraph of page 3 of the said motion reads as follows:
Hence, from May 1985 and continuously thru the years without interruption and surviving a series of no less than five (5) changes of Presiding Judges, the undersigned counsel labored tirelessly in handling the defense of client. In addition to the instant lawsuit, a multitude of peripheral cases, civil, criminal and administrative, arising from the non-delivery of titles by client on fully paid lots in the subdivision project were also filed as a consequence, not only against defendant but also against its President and Chief Executive Officer (CEO). Needless to state, the undersigned was designated to handle majority of these cases for both, where he appeared and conducted trial without any "appearance fees" for more than eight (8) long years solely relying on the contingent fee in case of recovery in the instant main case. 23 (emphasis supplied)
Second, the amount of P28 million, which Filstream agreed to pay the petitioner, was not a judgment or award in favor of the petitioner in Civil Case No. 612. It was the consideration of the assignment, transfer, and conveyance to Filstream of all the petitioner's "rights, interest and participation embodied and specified in the Joint Venture Agreement (Annex "A") and in all the eight hundred seventy-five (875) parcels of land comprising the SARANAY HOMES subdivision. . . ." The plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 612 were not parties to the memorandum of agreement, and there is no showing that they agreed to the assignment of the petitioner's rights, interest, and participation in the Joint venture Agreement. While paragraph 10 of the memorandum of agreement provides that the petitioner
shall cause to sign a JOINT MOTION TO DISMISS, together with the CARREONS regarding Civil Case No. 612 of the Regional Trial Court of Makati and to further DISMISS, the case filed against PNB docketed as Civil Case No. 6918 of the Regional Trial Court of Makati . . . [and] shall obtain the dismissal of all cases filed by lot buyers against it now pending with the HLURB
the fact remains that no such motion to dismiss has been filed yet in Civil Case No. 612, and there is no assurance whatsoever that the plaintiffs therein will sign a joint motion to dismiss. Third, as correctly posited by the petitioner, the private respondent had no participation in the negotiations leading to, and in the preparation of, the memorandum of agreement.
Indisputably then, the private respondent's attorney's fee on "contingent basis" in Civil Case No. 612 is unwarranted. If at all, he could only be entitled to attorney's fees on quantum meruit basis as of the expiration of his retainer contract on 31 March 1993.
Quantum meruit simply means "as much as he deserves." 24 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 attorneys, 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.
This Court had earlier declared the following as circumstances to be considered in determining the reasonableness of a claim for attorney's fees: (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 a much larger fee when it is contingent than when it is not. 25
Rule 20.1, Canon 20 of the Code of Professional Responsibility enumerates the following factors which should guide a lawyer in determining his fees:
(a) The time spent and the extent of the 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 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.
It was incumbent upon the private respondent to prove the reasonable amount of attorney's fees, taking into account the foregoing factors or circumstances.ℒαwρhi৷ The records before us and the trial court's 11 October 1993 order do not confirm that the private respondent proved by either testimonial or documentary evidence that the award of P600,000.00 was reasonable. The private respondent's testimony thereon was crucial. Yet, it does not appear from the 11 October 1993 order that he took the witness stand. From the Minutes of the trial court attached to the Rollo of CA-G.R. CV No. 44839, 26 it appears that only Atty. Atienza, and Mr. Suazo gave oral testimony on the motion.
It necessarily follows then that the 11 October 1993 order has insufficient factual basis, and the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in arbitrarily fixing the private respondent's attorney's fees at P600,000.00. The affirmance of the said order by the Court of Appeals premised on the provision in the retainer contract regarding contingent fee is thus fatally flawed.
The interest for both the petitioner and the private respondent demands that the trial court should conduct further proceedings in Civil Case No. 612 relative to the private respondent's motion for the payment of attorney's fees and, thereafter, fix it in light of Section 24, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court; Rule 20.1, Canon 20 of the Code of Professional Responsibility; and the jurisprudentially established guiding principles in determining attorney's fees on quantum meruit basis.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED. The challenged Decision of 31 March 1995 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 44839 and the Order of 11 October 1993 of the Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch 64, in Civil Case No. 612 are hereby SET ASIDE. The trial court is further. DIRECTED to set for further hearing the private respondent's Urgent Motion to Direct Payment of Attorney's Fees and/or Register Attorney's Charging Lien and thereafter to fix the private respondent's attorney's fees in Civil Case No. 612 as of 31 March 1993 when his contract with the petitioner was effectively terminated, taking into account Section 24, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court; Rule 20.1, Canon 20 of the Code of Professional Responsibility; and the jurisprudentially established guiding principles in determining attorney's fees on quantum meruit basis.
No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
Narvasa, C.J., Melo, Francisco and Panganiban, JJ., concur.
Footnotes
1 Annex "F" of Petition; Rollo, 67-70. Per Judge Delia H. Panganiban.
2 Entitled "Patricio Sarile, et al. v. Research and Service Realty, Inc."
3 Rollo, CA-G.R. CV No. 44839 (Rollo-CA), 50-57; Annex "A" of Petition; Rollo, 31-39. Per Rasul, J., with Barcelona and Labitoria, JJ., concurring.
4 Annex "C" of Petition; Rollo, 44-46.
5 Annex "D," Id.; Id., 47-57.
6 Annex "E," Id.; Id., 58-66.
7 Rollo, 67-70.
8 Rollo-CA, 27.
9 Id., 12-18
10 Supra note 3.
11 Rollo, 37-38.
12 Rollo-CA, 69-76.
13 Id., 71,161
14 Id., 72.
15 Id.
16 Id. 119-120.
17 Rollo, 61.
18 Rollo, 44.
19 RUBEN E. AGPALO, Legal Ethics, 140 [1992].
20 Id.
21 98 SCRA 424, 439 [1980].
22 2 Phil. 682 [1903].
23 Rollo, 60.
24 Black's Law Dictionary [5th ed.] 1119.
25 Martinez v. Banogan, 7 SCRA 913, 916, 917 [1963]; Delgado v. De la Rama, 43 Phil. 419, 421 [1922].
26 At page 7.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
