Title
Anido vs. Negado
Case
G.R. No. 143990
Decision Date
Oct 17, 2001
Petitioners challenged attorney's fee claim, alleging prescription. SC ruled claim barred by six-year prescriptive period, reversing CA's decision favoring private respondent.
Font Size:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 143990)

Facts:

Background of the Case:
This case involves a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, challenging the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated February 15, 2000, and its Resolution dated June 16, 2000, in CA-G.R. CV No. 39137. The case originated from a complaint for collection of attorney's fees filed by private respondent Filomeno R. Negado against petitioners Maria L. Anido, Jose E. Larraga, and Salud E. Larraga in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Palo, Leyte, on November 23, 1987.

Private Respondent's Allegations:
Private respondent claimed that in July 1978, he entered into an oral contract with petitioners to provide legal services for the settlement of the intestate estate of their parents, Federico V. Larraga and Florentina Entereso. He prepared several legal documents, including the "Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate Among Heirs" and "Project of Partition," and presented a "Contract for Attorney's Service and Fee" stipulating a 4% fee from the net proceeds of the sale of inherited properties. Petitioners allegedly refused to sign the contract but used the documents to settle the estate without paying him.

Petitioners' Defense:
Petitioners denied retaining private respondent's services, asserting that they had already engaged other lawyers for the estate settlement. They claimed that private respondent volunteered to draft the documents as a friend of their deceased parents and that his claim was barred by laches and prescription, as the complaint was filed more than ten years after the documents were prepared.

Pre-Trial Issues:
The issues were narrowed down to:

  1. Whether petitioners engaged private respondent's services.
  2. Whether the RTC had jurisdiction despite incorrect docket fees.
  3. Whether the claimed 15% attorney's fee was reasonable.

RTC Decision:
The RTC ruled in favor of private respondent, declaring that petitioners engaged his services and ordering them to pay 15% of the total sales of the properties (P953,250.00), plus 20% interest and litigation expenses.

Court of Appeals Decision:
The appellate court affirmed the existence of an oral contract but reduced the attorney's fees to 10% of the total sales (P635,500.00) and eliminated the interest and litigation expenses. It also noted that the action had prescribed but could not resolve the issue as it was not raised during pre-trial.

Issue:

  1. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in not dismissing the complaint on the ground of prescription.
  2. Whether the Court of Appeals violated the rule on res inter alios acta by crediting hearsay evidence.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)


Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.