PALE | FINALS
CANON 20 The professional engagement between petitioner and respondents
Duty to charge only fair and reasonable fees
Re p a ra t i o n s C o m m i s s i o n v s . Vi s a y a n Pa c k i n g
Corporation, G.R. No. 30712. February 6, 1991.
A stipulation regarding the payment of Attorney’s fees is
neither illegal nor immoral and is enforceable as the law
between the parties as long as such stipulation does not
contravene law, good morals, good customs, public order
or public policy.
As to the issue of FICI’s liability arising from its issuance of Surety
Bond No. 4122 dated May 30, 1960, it will be noted that FICI
interposed for the first time, on appeal, the defense that Surety Bond
No. 4122 has already expired. FICI did not allege any defense to the
effect that Surety Bond No. 4122 has already expired either in its
answer to the complaint dated October 26, 1962 nor in the entire
proceedings below. In fact, it adopted as its own whatever defenses its
co-defendant-appellant Vispac may interpose (Rollo, Record on Appeal,
FICI, p. 25; p. 44). It is settled jurisprudence that an issue which was
neither averred in the complaint nor raised during the trial in the
court below cannot be raised for the first time on appeal as it would
be offensive to the basic rules of fair play, justice and due process.
Country Bankers Insurance Corporation vs. Lianga Bay
and Community Multi-Purpose Cooperative, Inc., G.R.
No. 136914. January 25, 2002
Attorney’s fees are not awarded every time a party
prevails in a suit because of the policy that no premium
should be placed on the right to litigate.
With respect to the award of litigation expenses and attorney’s fees,
Article 2208 of the New Civil Code enumerates the instances where
such may be awarded and, in all cases, it must be reasonable, just and
equitable if the same were to be granted. Attorney’s fees as part of
damages are not meant to enrich the winning party at the expense of
the losing litigant. They are not awarded every time a party prevails in
a suit because of the policy that no premium should be placed on the
right to litigate. The award of attorney’s fees is the exception rather
than the general rule. As such, it is necessary for the court to make
findings of facts and law that would bring the case within the
exception and justify the grant of such award. We find none in this
case to warrant the award by the trial court of litigation expenses and
attorney’s fees in the amounts of Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00) and
Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00), respectively, and therefore, the
same must also be deleted.
Pineda vs. De Jesus, G.R. No. 155224. August 23, 2006.
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.
The recovery of attorney’s fees on the basis of quantum
meruit is permitted where there is no express agreement
for the payment of attorney’s 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.
1
was governed by the principle of quantum meruit which means “as
much as the lawyer deserves.” The recovery of attorney’s fees on this
basis is permitted, as in this case, where there is no express
agreement for the payment of attorney’s 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.
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.
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.
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 petitioner’s business·all of
which were not denied by respondents ·more than sufficed for the
work they did. The “full payment for settlement” should have
discharged petitioner’s obligation to them.
CANON 21
Duty to preserve the client’s confidence and secrets
Uy Chico vs. Union Life Assurance Society, No. 9231.
January 6, 1915
PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATIONS; ATTORNEY AND
CLIENT.
Communications made by a client to his attorney for the purpose of
being communicated to others are not privileged after they have been
so communicated, and may be proved by the testimony of the
attorney. This rule applies to a compromise agreement perfected by
the attorney with the authority and under the instructions of his
client. 

People vs. Sy Juco, No. 41957. August 28, 1937
DUTY OF AN ATTORNEY TO PRESERVE THE SECRETS OF
HIS CLIENTS.
The court could not and can not order the opening of the art metal
filing cabinet because, it having been proven that it belongs to the
appellant attorney and that in it he keeps records and documents of
his clients, to do so would be in violation of his rights as such attorney,
since it would be tantamount to compelling him to disclose or divulge
facts or things belonging to his clients, which should be kept secret,
PALE | FINALS
unless he is authorized by them to make such disclosure, it being a
duty imposed by law upon an attorney to strictly preserve the secrets
or communications made to him. Such an act would constitute a
qualified violation of section 383, No. 4, and of section 31 of Act No.
190.
CANON 22
Duty to withdraw legal services only for good cause and
upon notice
Mercado vs. Ubay, G.R. No. 35830. July 24, 1990
An Attorney is presumed to be properly authorized to
present any cause in which he appears and no written
power of attorney is required to authorize him to appear
in Court for his client.
An attorney is presumed to be properly authorized to represent any
cause in which he appears, and no written power of attorney is
required to authorize him to appear in court for his client (Sec. 21,
Rule 138, Rules of Court). The fact that private respondents had not
personally appeared in the hearings of Case TM-223 in the trial court
is immaterial. The filing of the answer by and appearance of Atty.
Danilo Pine in their behalf are sufficient to give private respondents
standing in court. It is hard to believe that a counsel who has no
personal interest in the case would fight for and defend a case with
persistence and vigor if he had not been authorized or employed by
the party concerned.
2
of the latter. All acts performed by them are deemed to be with the
client’s consent.
The new counsel who filed the motion for reconsideration
in behalf of the client is presumed to be authorized even if
he filed no formal notice of entry of appearance.
The case of Ong Ching v. Ramolete, is on all fours with the instant
controversy. The trial court therein held that the period to appeal had
already lapsed rendering the assailed decision final and executory
because petitioner’s motion for reconsideration, though presented
within the reglementary period, is without legal effect having been
filed by a lawyer other than petitionerÊs counsel of record. It
disregarded petitionerÊs written authorization belatedly filed by said
new lawyer as the same was not appended to the motion for
reconsideration previously filed. In debunking the ruling of the trial
court, we stressed that the new counsel who filed the motion for
reconsideration in behalf of the client is presumed to be authorized
even if he filed no formal notice of entry of appearance. Hence, said
motion effectively tolled the running of the period to appeal.

L a n d B a n k o f t h e P h i l i p p i n e s v s . Pa m i n t u a n
Development Co., G.R. No. 167886. October 25, 2005
The presumption in favor of the counsel’s authority to
appear in behalf of a client is a strong one. A lawyer is not
even required to present a written authorization from the
client.
We find that the DARAB gravely abused its discretion in holding that
Attys. Montarde and Mesa lacked the authority to file a notice of
appeal in behalf of petitioner. Section 21, Rule 138 of the Rules of
Court provides: SEC. 21. Authority of attorney to appear.·An attorney
is presumed to be properly authorized to represent any cause in
which he appears, and no written power of attorney is required to
authorize him to appear in court for his client, but the presiding judge
may, on motion of either party and on reasonable grounds therefor
being shown, require any attorney who assumes the right to appear in
a case to produce or prove the authority under which he appears, and
to disclose, whenever pertinent to any issue, the name of the person
who employed him, and may thereupon make such order as justice
requires. An attorney willfully appearing in court for a person without
being employed, unless by leave of the court, may be punished for
contempt as an officer of the court who has misbehaved in his official
transactions. The presumption in favor of the counselÊs authority to
appear in behalf of a client is a strong one. A lawyer is not even
required to present a written authorization from the client. In fact, the
absence of a formal notice of entry of appearance will not invalidate
the acts performed by the counsel in his clientÊs name. However, the
court, on its own initiative or on motion of the other party require a
lawyer to adduce authorization from the client.

Absent a formal notice of substitution, all lawyers who

appeared before the court or filed pleadings in behalf of
the client are considered counsels of the latter. All acts
performed by them are deemed to be with the client’s
consent.
The Court of Appeals erroneously applied the doctrine laid down in
Sublay v. National Labor Relations Commission, in dismissing the
petition. In Sublay, it was held that a substitution cannot be presumed
from the mere filing of a notice of appearance of a new lawyer and
that the representation of the first counsel of record continuous until
a formal notice to change counsel is filed with the court. Thus, absent
a formal notice of substitution, all lawyers who appeared before the
court or filed pleadings in behalf of the client are considered counsels