Title
Bach vs. Ongkiko Kalaw Manhit and Acorda Law Offices
Case
G.R. No. 160334
Decision Date
Sep 11, 2006
Client engaged law firm for nullity case; firm withdrew, billed P1M. Court ruled P500K fees reasonable, deleted interest, reduced litigation costs to P30K.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 76647)

Facts of the Case

The petitioner, Guenter Bach, engaged the legal services of the respondent law firm, Ongkiko Kalaw Manhit & Accorda Law Offices, to represent him in a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage filed before the Regional Trial Court of Makati City. A Fee Agreement was signed, stipulating payment as follows: 7.5% of all cash recoveries and 5% of the market value of properties awarded to the petitioner. On December 5, 1995, the respondent withdrew its representation due to policy differences. Subsequently, the respondent issued a termination billing amounting to P1,000,000.00 plus 2% monthly interest for late payment.

Notices and RTC Actions

On March 7, 1996, the respondent filed a Notice of Charging Lien with the RTC concerning the properties of the spouses Bach. An RTC order on February 5, 1997, directed the annotation of this lien. On February 11, 1999, the respondent received a court order granting Bach’s motion to withdraw his petition. Despite demands for payment, Bach failed to settle, leading the respondent to file a complaint for the collection of the alleged fees before the RTC.

Trial Court Proceedings

In the RTC, the petitioner sought to dismiss the complaint, claiming prior payments totaling P200,000.00 for services rendered. The motion to dismiss was denied, and the court later found him in default for not filing an answer. The RTC ruled in favor of the respondent, awarding P750,000.00 as attorney's fees, P700,000.00 for billable time, and P50,000.00 for litigation expenses.

Court of Appeals Ruling

Upon appeal, the Court of Appeals modified the RTC's decision by deleting the P700,000.00 billable time award while upholding the rest of the judgment. Petitioner subsequently sought review from the Supreme Court, questioning the reasonableness of the fees awarded under quantum meruit.

Reasonableness of Attorney’s Fees

The Supreme Court reiterated established legal principles concerning the assessment of attorney’s fees based on quantum meruit. The rule dictates that such assessments are factual determinations typically not disturbed unless contravening substantial evidence.

Supreme Court’s Findings

The Court noted that in assessing reasonable attorney’s fees, it considers various factors, including the complexity of the case, the services rendered, and the attorney's professional standing. In this instance, the services provided did not evidence extraordinary complexity, leading the Court to determine that the fees should be set at P500,000.00.

Interest on Fees

The Supreme Court determined that the imposition of 2% legal interest on the attorney's fees was unwarranted. Citing relevant jurisprudence, it clarified that the mere presence of a contractual relationship does not justify interest unless specifically stipulated, th

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.