54.) G.R. No.

104600, July 2, 1999

Rilloraza, Africa, De Ocampo and Africa vs. Eastern
Telecommunications, Phils., Inc.

DOCTRINE: Whether there is an agreement or not, the courts shall fix a

reasonable compensation which lawyers may receive for their professional
services. A lawyer has the right to be paid for the legal services he has
extended to his client, which compensation must be reasonable. A lawyer
would be entitled to receive what he merits for his services. Otherwise
stated, the amount must be determined on a quantum meruit basis.

FACTS:
Eastern Telecommunications, Phils., Inc. (ETPI) represented by the law
firm SAGA, filed with the Regional Trial court a complaint for the recovery or
revenue shares against PLDT. Atty. Rilloraza, a partner of the firm, appeared
for ETPI.
After ETPI rested its case, it paid SAGA the billed amount. The latter
was dissolved and the junior partners formed RADA, which took over as
counsel in the case for ETPI. ETPI signed a retainer agreement with counsel
wherein it was stated that in cases of collection or judicial action, our
attorneys fees shall be 15% of the amounts collected or the value of the
property acquired or liability saved. The retainer agreement was terminated
in 1988. the next day, RADA filed a notice of attorneys lien. In its notice,
RADA informed the court that there were negotiations toward a compromise
between ETPI and PLDT.
In 1990, the parties arrived at an amicable settlement and the same
was entered as a judgment. The petitioner (RADA) filed a motion for the
enforcement of attorneys lien.

ISSUE: Is RADA entitled to the awards of attorneys fees they are

claiming?

HELD:
RADA is entitled to attorneys fees but the Supreme Court remanded
the case to the court of origin for the determination of the amount of
attorneys fees to which the petitioner is entitled.
Atty. Rilloraza handled the case from its inception until ETPI terminated
the law firms services in 1988. Petitioners claim for attorneys fees hinges
on two grounds: first, the fact that Atty. Rilloraza personally handled the case
when he was working for SAGA, and second, the retainer agreement.
Whether there is an agreement or not, the courts shall fix a reasonable
compensation which lawyers may receive for their professional services. A
lawyer has the right to be paid for the legal services he has extended to his
client, which compensation must be reasonable. A lawyer would be entitled
to receive what he merits for his services. Otherwise stated, the amount
must be determined on a quantum meruit basis.
 "Quantum meruit, meaning 'as much as he deserved' is used as a
basis for determining the lawyer's professional fees in the absence of a
contract but recoverable by him from his client. 19 Recovery of attorney's
fees on the basis ofquantum meruit is authorized when (1) there is no
express contract for payment of attorney's fees agreed upon between the
lawyer and the client; (2) when although there is a formal contract for
attorney's fees, the fees stipulated are found unconscionable or
unreasonable by the court; and (3) when the contract for attorney's fee's is
void due to purely formal defects of execution; (4) when the counsel, for
justifiable cause, was not able to finish the case to its conclusion; (5) when
lawyer and client disregard the contract for attorney's fees,
In fixing a reasonable compensation for the services rendered by a
lawyer on the basis of quantum meruit, the elements to be considered are
generally (1) the importance of the subject matter in controversy, (2) the
extent of services rendered, and (3) the professional standing of the lawyer.
A determination of these factors would indispensably require nothing less
than a full-blown trial where private respondents can adduce evidence to
establish the right to lawful attorney's fees and for petitioner to oppose or
refute the same. The trial court has the principal task of fixing the amount of
attorney's fees.