TodayisThursday,November24,2016

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila
FIRSTDIVISION
G.R.No.160334September11,2006
GUENTERBACH,petitioner,
vs.
ONGKIKOKALAWMANHIT&ACORDALAWOFFICES,respondent.
DECISION
CHICONAZARIO,J.:
This Petition for Review on Certiorari seeks to reverse the Decision1 dated 8 October 2003 of the Court of
AppealsinCAG.R.CVNo.74445,entitled,"OngkikoKalawManhit&AccordaLawOfficesv.GuenterBach."
Thefactsasculledfromtherecordsofthecaseareasfollows:
On 7 November 1994, petitioner Guenter Bach engaged the services of respondent law firm Ongkiko Kalaw
Manhit&AccordaLawOfficestorepresenthiminaPetitionforDeclarationofNullityofMarriagefiledbeforethe
RegionalTrialCourt(RTC)ofMakatiCity,Branch143,docketedasCivilCaseNo.95224.Thepartiessigneda
"Fee Agreement," for the legal services to be rendered by respondent. The provision for payment of the legal
servicesreads:
(a) seven and onehalf (7 % ) of all cash recoveries, including damages, interests, attorney's fees and
costsaswellas
(b) five percent (5 %) of the market value of all properties awarded to [the petitioner] by the court or
obtainedthroughthecompromiseagreement,valuedatthetimeofrecovery.2
However, on 5 December 1995, respondent withdrew its appearance as counsel of petitioner, due to policy
differences.On18December1995,respondentsenttheterminationbilling3 for the services they rendered and
billedpetitionerthetotalamountofP1,000,000.00plus2%interestforeverymonthofdelayinpayment,basedon
theprovisionforterminationofservicesstatedintheirFeeAgreement,thus:
(C)Interestforlatepayment
Allfeesmentionedhereinarepayablewithinseven(7)daysfromreceiptofourstatementofaccount.Itis
understoodthatalllatepaymentsshallbesubjecttointerestpaymentattherateof2%permonthofdelay,
afractionofamonthbeingconsideredasonemonth,countedfromthedatethefeesshallfalldue,without
needofpriordemand.
xxxx
(F)TerminationClause
Itisunderstoodthatyoumayterminateourservicesatanytime.Insuchanevent,weshallbeentitledto
collectfeesforlegalservicesalreadyperformedandresultsobtainedbasedonquantummeruit."4
On7March1996,respondentfiledwiththeRTCaNotice5ofChargingLienoverthepropertiesofthespouses
Bach.
On 5 February 1997, the RTC issued an Order6 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
charginglien.
On11February1999,respondentreceivedacopyoftheOrder7dated8June1998,grantingpetitioner'sMotion
toWithdrawhispetitioninCivilCaseNo.95224.
Despite respondent's demands for his legal fees, petitioner failed and refused to pay. Thus, respondent filed a
Complaint8forasumofmoneyalsobeforetheRTCofMakati,Branch148,docketedasCivilCaseNo.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
P150,000.00foranyappealtakenandP50,000.00aslitigationexpensesandthecostofsuit.
WithintheperiodforfilinganAnswer,petitionerfiledaMotion9todismissonthegroundthatrespondent'sclaim
had already been paid, waived, abandoned or otherwise extinguished. Petitioner contended that prior to
respondent'swithdrawalascounselinCivilCaseNo.95224,petitionerhadalreadypaidrespondent'sservicesin
thetotalamountofP200,000.00.On9August1999,theMotiontoDismisswasdenied10bytheRTCforlackof
merit.PetitionerfailedtofilehisAnswerthus,hewasdeclaredindefaultandrespondentwasallowedtopresent
itsevidenceexparte.11

On24January2002,theRTCrendereditsjudgmentinfavoroftherespondent,thedispositiveportionofwhich
reads:
WHEREFORE,premisesconsidered,judgmentisherebyrenderedinfavoroftheplaintiffandagainstthe
defendantandthelatterisherebyorderedtopaythefollowing:
1.TheamountofP750,000.00asplaintiff'slawfulfeesforservicesrenderedunderCivilCaseNo.95224,
plusinterestattherateof2%permonthfromthedateofdemanduntilpaid
2.P700,000.00representingbillabletimewhichwasspentinprosecutingthiscase
3.P50,000.00asandlitigationexpenses,and
4.Costsofsuit.12
Notsatisfied,petitionerappealedtotheCourtofAppeals,whichmodifiedtheRTCDecision,thus:
WHEREFORE, Based on the foregoing premises, the instant appeal is PARTLY GRANTED and the
appealedJanuary24,2002DecisionoftheRegionalTrialCourtofMakatiCityBranch148inCivilCaseNo.
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. All other aspects of the appealed
DECISIONareUPHELD.13
Hence,thisPetitionfiledbypetitionerGuenterBachraisingthefollowingissuestowit:
WHETHERORNOTUNDERTHECONCEPTOFQUANTUMMERUIT,THEAMOUNTOFP750,000.00AS
FEES FOR SERVICES RENDERED WITH INTEREST PEGGED AT 2% A MONTH FROM DATE OF
DEMANDUNTILFULLYPAIDISREASONABLE
WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS LEGAL BASIS TO AWARD P50,000.00 AS AND FOR LITIGATION
EXPENSESANDCOSTSOFSUIT.14
Onthefirstissue,petitionercontendsthattheP750,000.00awardedtotherespondentbywayofquantummeruit,
with interest of 2% a month from date of demand until fully paid, is excessive, unreasonable and confiscatory.
Thus,petitionerpraysforreductionofthesame.
Both the Court of Appeals and the trial court approved the attorney's fees in the total amounts of P750,000.00
plus2%interestfortheservicesrenderedbyrespondentinCivilCaseNo.95224.Inthisregard,theruleisthat
theissueofthereasonablenessofattorney'sfeesbasedonquantummeruitisaquestionoffact,andwellsettled
istherulethatconclusionsandfindingsoffactbythelowercourtsareentitledtogreatweightonappealandwill
notbedisturbedexceptforstrongandcogentreasons.ThefindingsoftheCourtofAppealsbyitself,whichare
supportedbysubstantialevidence,arealmostbeyondthepowerofreviewbytheSupremeCourt.15Thus,inthe
exerciseoftheSupremeCourt'spowerofreviewthefindingsoffactsoftheCourtofAppealsareconclusiveand
binding on the Supreme Court. There are, however, recognized exceptions to this rule, namely: (1) when the
findingsaregroundedentirelyonspeculation,surmisesorconjectures(2)whentheinferencemadeismanifestly
mistaken,absurdorimpossible(3)whenthereisgraveabuseofdiscretion(4)whenthejudgmentisbasedon
misapprehensionoffacts(5)whenthefindingsoffactsareconflicting(6)wheninmakingthefindingstheCourt
ofAppealswentbeyondtheissuesofthecase,oritsfindingsarecontrarytotheadmissionsofboththeappellee
and the appellant (7) when the findings are contrary to the trial court (8) when the findings are conclusions
withoutcitationofspecificevidenceonwhichtheyarebased(9)whenthefactssetforthinthepetitionaswellas
in the petitioner's main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondent (10) when the findings of facts are
premisedonthesupposedabsenceofevidenceandcontradictedbytheevidenceonrecordand(11)whenthe
Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties, which if properly
considered,wouldjustifyadifferentconclusion.16Exceptions(4)and(11)arepresentinthecaseatbar,andso
thisCourtshallmakeitsowndeterminationofthefactsrelevantfortheresolutionofthecase.
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
reasonableamountofattorney'sfeesinfavorofrespondent.
There are two concepts of attorney's fees. In the ordinary sense, attorney's fees represent the reasonable
compensationpaidtoalawyerbyhisclientforthelegalservicesrenderedtothelatter.Ontheotherhand,inits
extraordinaryconcept,attorney'sfeesmaybeawardedbythecourtasindemnityfordamagestobepaidbythe
losingpartytotheprevailingparty.17
Theissueinthiscaseconcernsattorney'sfeesintheordinaryconcept.Generally,theamountofattorney'sfees
due is that stipulated in the retainer agreement which is conclusive as to the amount of the lawyer's
compensation.Intheabsencethereof,theamountofattorney'sfeesisfixedonthebasisofquantummeruit,i.e.,
thereasonableworthoftheattorney'sservices.Courtsmayascertainalsoiftheattorney'sfeesarefoundtobe
excessive, what is reasonable under the circumstances.18 In no case, however, must a lawyer be allowed to
recovermorethanwhatisreasonable,pursuanttoSection24,Rule138oftheRulesofCourt,whichprovides:
SEC.24.Compensationofattorney'sfeesagreementastofees.Anattorneyshallbeentitledtohaveand
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
witnessesastothepropercompensation,butmaydisregardsuchtestimonyandbaseitsconclusiononits
own professional knowledge. A written contract for services shall control the amount to be paid
thereforunlessfoundbythecourttobeunconscionableorunreasonable.(Underscoringsupplied.)
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)thenatureandimportanceofthelitigationorbusinessinwhichtheserviceswererendered(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
contingentthanwhenitisnot.19
Rule 20.1, Canon 20 of the Code of Professional Responsibility enumerates the following factors which should
guidealawyerindetermininghisfees:
(a)thetimespentandextentofservicesrenderedorrequired
(b)thenoveltyanddifficultyofthequestionsinvolved
(c)theimportanceofthesubjectmatter
(d)theskilldemanded
(e)theprobabilityoflosingotheremploymentasaresultoftheacceptanceoftheprofferedcase
(f) the customary charges for similar services and the schedule of fees of the IBP Chapter to which he
belongs
(g)theamountinvolvedinthecontroversyandthebenefitsresultingtotheclientfromtheservice
(h)thecontingencyorcertaintyofcompensation
(i)thecharacteroftheemployment,whetheroccasionalorestablishedand
(j)theprofessionalstandingofthelawyer.
Indeterminingareasonablefeetobepaidtorespondentascompensationfortheirservicesonquantum
meruit,basedonthefactorsabovequoted,itispropertoconsiderallthefactsandcircumstancesobtaining
inthiscase.
It is undisputed that respondent firm had rendered services as counsel for the petitioners in Civil Case No. 95
244.Theservicesrenderedconsistofthefollowing:
1.Respondentwasabletoannotateanotice20oflispendensonthepropertyofSpousesBachinCaloocan
CitycoveredbyTCTNo.C12112,therebypreventingeasydispositionofthepropertybyLuzvimindaBach
2.Respondentwaslikewiseabletoannotateanotice21oflispendensonthepropertyofSpousesBachin
PasigCitycoveredbyTCTNo.48223,therebypreventingdispositionofthepropertybyLuzvimindaBach
3. Further, respondent annotated a notice22 of lis pendens on the property of Spouses Bach in
Dasmarinas, Cavite covered by TCT No. T339282, thereby preventing disposition of the property by
LuzvimindaBach
4.Additionally,respondentannotatedanotice23oflispendensonthepropertyofSpousesBachinTanza,
Cavite,coveredbyTCTNo.T255263,therebypreventingdispositionofthepropertybyLuzvimindaBach
5. Respondent also worked on the annotation of the notice24 of lispendens on the property of Spouses
BachinMakati,coveredbyTCTNo.S62541,therebypreventingdispositionofthepropertybyLuzviminda
Bach
6. Respondent worked on the annotation of a notice of lispendens on the property of Spouses Bach in
Dasmarias, Cavite, covered by TCT No. T380848, thereby preventing disposition of the property by
LuzvimindaBach
7.Respondentannotatedanotice25oflispendensonthepropertyofSpousesBachsituatedinTagaytay
City,coveredbyTCTNo.P705,therebypreventingdispositionofthepropertybyLuzvimindaBach
8. Respondent filed the Petition26 for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage and Dissolution of the Conjugal
PartnershipofGainsofpetitionerwithhiswife
9.Respondentpreparedanaffidavit27infavorofpetitionerattestingtothefactofpetitioner'smarriageand
theirpropertiesacquiredduringhismarriagewithLuzvimindaBach:
10.Respondentpreparedanexpartemotion28todeclarepetitioner'swifetohavewaivedherrighttofile
answer for failure to file the same within the period granted by law and to direct the public prosecutor to
determinewhetherornotacollusionexist
11. Respondent prepared a Petition29 for appointment of a receiver and to compel petitioner's wife to
renderanaccounting
12.Otherservicesincludedthefillingofseveraloppositions30tocertainmotionsfiledbypetitioner'swife
13.Respondentfiledamotion31tosetthecaseforpreliminaryinvestigation
14.Respondentfiledanexpartemotion32todeclarepetitioner'swifeindefault
15. Respondent submitted a supplemental comment33 on the motion for leave to withdraw funds from
CertificateofParticipationfiledbypetitioner'swife

16.Respondentfiledamanifestationandmotion34prayingthecourttodirectpetitioner'swifetodesignate
herleadcounselinthecase
17.RespondentpreparedaReply35tocommentsonoppositionofpetitioner
18.RespondentwasabletosecureanOrder36 from the said court freezing the United Coconut Planters
Bank(UCPB)accountinthenameofpetitioner'swife,LuzvimindaBach,containingaboutP6,500,000.00,
representingthebalanceoftheproceedsfromthesaleoftheirconjugalpropertyinPasigCity
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
October1995,1December1995,7December1995,29March1996and16January199737
20. Conducted several preliminary and post litigation conferences in the proceedings for preliminary
injunctionleadingtothefreezingofthebankaccountofthepartiesand
21.Preparedandsentoutnumerousletterstothirdpartiesandentitiestoprotecttheinterestofpetitioner
and notices to petitioner updating him of the status of the case and the courses of action taken by
respondentLawFirm.38
Insum,theservicesrenderedbytherespondentasenumeratedaboveandasadmitted39byAtty.MarioOngkiko
during the exparte hearing, consist of annotating notice of lispendens on the conjugal properties of petitioner
and his wife filing the Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage preparing and filing various pleadings and
documentsrelevanttothecaseobtainingafreezeorderofpetitioner'sfundsintheUCPBattendinghearingsin
CivilCaseNo.05224,andsendingnoticestopetitionerupdatingthelatterofthestatusofthecase.Nothingin
Civil Case No. 95224 so far appears complicated and no extra ordinary skill was needed for lawyers of
respondentLawFirmtoaccomplishwhattheyhaddoneinthecasebeforetheywithdrewtheirappearance.We
donotfindhereinasituationsointricatethatdemandsmorethanacarefulscrutinyofthelegalmattersinvolved.
Thesearesimplythenormaldutiesofalawyerthatheisboundbylawtorendertohisclientswithutmostfidelity
forwhichhisclientmustnotbeburdenedtopayanextraprice.Itbearsstressingthatatthetimerespondentfirm
withdrewtheirappearanceduetopolicydifferenceswithpetitioner,thecasewasstillinitsinitialstage.
Guidedbytheaboveyardstickandsomuchofthepertinentdataasareextantintherecordsofthiscaseandin
the exercise of our sound discretion, we hold that the amount of P500,000.00 is a reasonable and fair
compensationforthelegalservicesrenderedbyrespondenttothepetitioner.
Theimpositionoflegalinterestontheamountpayabletoprivaterespondentasattorney'sfeesisunwarranted.
Evenasweagreethatpartiescanfreelystipulateonthetermsofpayment,stilltheimpositionofinterestinthe
paymentofattorney'sfeesisnotjustified.InthecaseofCortesv.CourtofAppeals,40weruledthatArticle220941
oftheCivilCodedoesnotevenjustifytheimpositionoflegalinterestonthepaymentofattorney'sfeesasitisa
provisionoflawgoverningordinaryobligationsandcontracts.Itdeletedthe6%interestimposedbytheappellate
court on the payment of attorney's fees. It ratiocinated by citing Mambulao Lumber Co. v. Philippine National
Bank,42thus:
Contractsforattorney'sservicesinthisjurisdictionstandsuponanentirelydifferentfootingfrom
contractsforthepaymentofcompensationforanyotherservices.xxx[A]nattorneyisnotentitledin
the absence of express contract to recover 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
compensationiftheamountofthestipulatedfeeisfoundbythecourttobeunreasonable.Thisisavery
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
P2,115.25fortheservicestoberenderedinreducingthenotehereinsuittojudgment,itwouldnothave
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,thatitiscontrarytomoralityorpublicpolicy(Art.1255,CivilCode).Itisenoughthatitis
unreasonableorunconscionable.(Emphasessupplied.)
Wehaveheldthatlawyeringisnotamoneymakingventureandlawyersarenotmerchants.43 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
governmentalinterference,isimpressedwithapublicinterest,forwhichitissubjecttoStateregulation.44
Alawyerisnotmerelythedefenderofhisclient'scauseandatrusteeofhisclient'scauseofactionandassets
he is also, and first and foremost, an officer of the court and participates in the fundamental function of
administering justice in society.45 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
legalprofessiontowhichhebelongs.Upontakinghisattorney'soathasanofficerofthecourt,alawyersubmits
himselftotheauthorityofthecourtstoregulatehisrighttochargeprofessionalfees.46
Thoughwereducedtheawardofattorney'sfeesanddisallowedtheimpositionofinterestthereon,thefactthatan
attorneyplaysavitalroleintheadministrationofjusticeunderscorestheneedtosecuretohimhishonorarium
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
againstabuseonthepartofhiscounsel.Thedutyofthecourtisnotalonetoseethatalawyeractsinaproper
andlawfulmanneritisalsoitsdutytoseethatalawyerispaidhisjustfees.Withhiscapitalconsistingonlyofhis
brainsandwithhisskillacquiredattremendouscostnotonlyinmoneybutinexpenditureoftimeandenergy,he
isentitledtotheprotectionofanyjudicialtribunalagainstanyattemptonthepartofhisclienttoescapepayment

ofhisjustcompensation.Itwouldbeironicifafterputtingforththebestinhimtosecurejusticeforhisclient,he
himselfwouldnotgethisdue.47
Thus,theCourtofAppealsdidnoterrinawardingexpensesoflitigation.Article2208,paragraphs2,5and11,of
theCivilCode,authorizetherecoveryofsuchfees"(2)Whenthedefendant'sactoromissionhascompelledthe
plaintifftolitigatexxxortoincurexpensestoprotecthisinterestxxx(5)Wherethedefendantactedingross
andevidentbadfaithinrefusingtosatisfytheplaintiff'splainlyvalid,justanddemandableclaimxxxand(11)In
anyothercasewherethecourtdeemsitjustandequitablethatattorney'sfeesandexpensesoflitigationshould
be recovered." Considering the fact that respondent was drawn into this litigation by petitioner to protect and
defendtheirinterestandtakingintoaccounttheservicesalreadyrenderedbyrespondenttopetitioner,thesumof
P30,000.00asexpensesoflitigationandcostofsuitwouldbereasonableunderthepremises.
WHEREFORE,theDecisionappealedfromisAFFIRMEDWITHMODIFICATIONStotheeffectthattheattorney's
fees awarded to respondent is REDUCED to P500,000.00, the legal interest of 2% on the amount due to
respondentisDELETED,andtheawardoflitigationexpensesisREDUCEDtoP30,000.00.
SOORDERED.
Panganiban,C.J.,Chairperson,YnaresSantiago,AustriaMartinez,Callejo,Sr.,J.J.,concur.

Footnotes
1PennedbyAssociateJusticeElviJohnS.AsuncionwithAssociateJusticesGodardoA.JacintoandLucas

P.Bersamin,concurringrollo,pp.1622.
2Records,Vol.I,p.11.
3Id.Vol.II,pp.380381.
4Id.,Vol.I,pp.1112.
5Id.at154158.
6Id.at38.
7Id.at22.
8Id.at18.
9Id.at2935.
10Id.at5560.
11Id.at65.Orderdated19November1999.
12Id.at236.
13Rollo,pp.2122.
14Id.at7.
15Pimentelv.CourtofAppeals,366Phil.494,501(1999),citingAtlanticGulfandPacificCompanyof

Manila,Inc.v.CourtofAppeals,317Phil.707,713(1995).
16LangkaanRealtyDevelopment,Incv.UnitedCoconutPlantersBank,G.R.No.139437,8December

2000,347SCRA542,549Nokomv.NationalLaborRelationsCommission,390Phil.1228,12421243
(2000)CommissionerofInternalRevenuev.EmbroideryandGarmentsIndustries(Phils.),Inc.,364Phil.
541,546547(1999)Sta.Mariav.CourtofAppeals,349Phil.275,282283(1998).
17TradersRoyalBankEmployeesUnionIndependentv.NationalLaborRelationsCommission,336Phil.

705,717(1997).
18Sesbrenov.CourtofAppeals,314Phil.884,894(1995).
19ResearchandServicesRealty,Inc.v.CourtofAppeals,334Phil.652,668(1997).
20Records,Vol.2,pp.344345.
21Id.at338339.
22Id.at335336.
23Id.at332333.
24Id.at342343.
25Id.at430341.
26Id.at278299.

27Id.,ExhibitR1,pp.384395.
28Id.,ExhibitR2,pp.396397.
29Id.,ExhibitR3,pp.399407.
30Id.,ExhibitsR4,pp.408413R5,pp.414417R8pp.423427R9,pp.428430ExhibitR12,pp.

438440andExhibitR14,pp.447450.
31Id.,ExhibitR6,pp.418419.
32Id.,ExhibitR7,pp.420422.
33Id.,ExhibitR10,pp431433.
34Id.,ExhibitR11,pp.434437.
35Id.,ExhibitR13,pp.441446.
36Records,Vol.2,p.301.
37Id.at302315.
38Id.at324380.
39TSN,10September2001,pp.1011.
40443Phil.42,54(2003).
41Art.2209.Iftheobligationconsistsinthepaymentofasumofmoney,andthedebtorincursindelay,the

indemnityfordamages,therebeingnostipulationtothecontrary,shallbethepaymentoftheinterest
agreedupon,andintheabsenceofstipulation,thelegalinterest,whichissixpercentperannum.
42130Phil.366,381382(1968).
43Canon1,CanonsofProfessionalEthics.
44MetropolitanBank&TrustCompanyv.CourtofAppeals,181SCRA367,377,citingCanlasv.Courtof

Appeals,G.R.No.L77691,8August1988,164SCRA160.
45Pinedav.Atty.DeJesus,G.R.No.155224,23August2006.
46Sumaoangv.Judge,RTC,Br.XXXI,Guimba,NuevaEcija,G.R.No.78173,26October1992,215SCRA

136,143.
47Agpalo,LEGALETHICS(4thEd.,1989),pp.302303.

TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation