c20 & r20.01

8/9/2019 C20 & R20.01

1/24

Copyright 1994-2007 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. Jurisprudence 1986 to 2006 1

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 152072. January 31, 2006.]

ROMEO G. ROXAS and SATIAGO . PASTOR, petitioners, vs.

ATOIO DE ZUZUARREGUI, JR., ERIQUE DE

ZUZUARREGUI, PACITA JAVIER, ELIZABETH R. GOZALES,

JOSEFIA R. DAZA, ELIAS REYES, ATIVIDAD REYES,

TERESITA REYES, JOSE REYES and ATOIO REYES,

respondents.

[G.R. No. 152104. January 31, 2006.]

ATOIO DE ZUZUARREGUI, JR., ERIQUE DE

ZUZUARREGUI, PACITA JAVIER, ELIZABETH R. GOZALES,

JOSEFIA R. DAZA, ELIAS REYES, ATIVIDAD REYES,

TERESITA REYES, JOSE REYES and ATOIO REYES,

petitioners, vs. THE ATIOAL HOUSIG AUTHORITY, JOSE B.

H. PEDROSA, ROMEO G. ROXAS and SATIAGO . PASTOR,

respondents.

D E C I S I O

CHICO-AZARIO, Jp:

Before Us are two petitions for review on certiorari 1(1) which were

consolidated per Resolution 2(2) of this Court dated 27 November 2002. The

petitioners in G.R. No. 152072, Attys. Romeo G. Roxas and Santiago N. Pastor, seek

the reversal and annulment of the Decision 3(3) and Resolution 4(4) of the Court of

Appeals dated 25 June 2001 and 06 February 2002, respectively. The petitioners in

G.R. No. 152104, the Zuzuarreguis, on the other hand, pray that the said Decision and

8/9/2019 C20 & R20.01

2/24


Resolution of the Court of Appeals be modified. Said Decision and Resolution

reversed and set aside the decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 98,

Quezon City, dated 03 January 1994.

THE ATECEDETS

The instant cases had their beginnings in 1977 when the National Housing

Authority (NHA) filed expropriation proceedings against the Zuzuarreguis, petitioners

in G.R. No. 152104, for parcels of land belonging to the latter situated in Antipolo,

Rizal, with a total land area of 1,790,570.36 square meters, more or less. This case

was lodged before the RTC, Branch 141, Municipality of Makati, 5(5) docketed therein

as Civil Case No. 26804 entitled, "ational Housing Authority v. Pilar Ibaez Vda.

De Zuzuarregui, et al."

On 25 May 1983, said case was ordered archived6(6)

by Branch 141.

About a month before the aforecited case was ordered archived, the

Zuzuarreguis engaged the legal services of Attys. Romeo G. Roxas and Santiago N.

Pastor, to represent them in Civil Case No. 26804. This was sealed by a

Letter-Agreement dated 22 April 1983, which is partly reproduced hereunder:

April 22, 1983

Mr. Antonio de Zuzuarregui, Jr.

Mrs. Pacita Javier (as heir to the

late Jose de Zuzuarregui)Mr. Antonio de Zuzuarregui ( as heir to

the late Pilar Y. vda. De Zuzuarregui)

Dear Sir and Madam:

This is to confirm in writing our verbal negotiations for us to represent

you in the expropriation proceedings filed by the National Housing Authority

against your goodselves before the Court of First Instance of Rizal (now the

Regional Trial Court) and docketed as Civil Case No. 26804. Our representation

shall also include the areas taken over by the Ministry of Public Works and

Highways which now formed part of the Marcos Highway at Antipolo, Rizal.DCATHS

The areas affected are the following:

xxx xxx xxx

We shall endeavor to secure the just compensation with the National

8/9/2019 C20 & R20.01

3/24


Housing Authority and other governmental agencies at a price of ELEVEN

PESOS (P11.00) or more per square meter. Any lower amount shall not entitle

us to any attorney's fees. At such price of P11.00 per square meter or more our

contingent fee[s] is THIRTY PERCENT (30%) of the just compensation.

The other terms and conditions of our proposal are:

xxx xxx xxx

5. You are willing to accept NHA 5-year bonds as part payment up to 75% of

the total compensation. In the event of your desire to discount the bonds, we

shall assist to have them discounted at 75% of its face value.

6. Our lawyer's fees shall be in the proportion of the cash/bonds ratio of the

just compensation. Likewise our fees are subject to 10% withholding tax.

xxx xxx xxx

Should the above proposal be acceptable to your goodselves, kindly

signify your formal acceptance as (sic) the space hereunder provided.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) (Sgd.)

SANTIAGO N. PASTOR ROMEO G. ROXAS

Lawyer Lawyer

CONFORME:(Sgd.) (Sgd.)

ANTONIO DE ZUZUARREGUI, JR. PACITA JAVIER

In my behalf and as heir to As heir to the late

The late Pilar Y. vda. De Jose De Zuzuarregui 7(7)

Zuzuarregui

A Motion to Set Case for Hearing, 8(8) dated 14 February 1984, was filed by

Attys. Roxas and Pastor in Civil Case No. 26804, praying that the case be revived and

be set for hearing by the court at the earliest date available in its calendar.

The appropriate proceedings thereafter ensued. On 29 October 1984, a Partial

Decision was rendered by Branch 141 in Civil Case No. 26804 fixing the just

compensation to be paid to the Zuzuarreguis at P30.00 per square meter.

The NHA filed a Motion for Reconsideration 9(9) dated 23 November 1984

praying that the Partial Decision be reconsidered and set aside, and a new one

8/9/2019 C20 & R20.01

4/24


rendered lowering the amount of just compensation in accordance with applicable

laws. Pending resolution thereof, a Joint Special Power of Attorney was executed by

Antonio De Zuzuarregui, Jr., Enrique De Zuzuarregui and Pacita Javier, in favor of

Attys. Roxas and Pastor, viz:

JOINT SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:

That We, ANTONIO DE ZUZUARREGUI, JR., ENRIQUE DE

ZUZUARREGUI and PACITA JAVIER, all of legal age, . . . , do hereby

appoint, name and constitute ATTYS. ROMEO G. ROXAS and SANTIAGO

PASTOR, to be our true and lawful attorneys to act in our names and on our

behalves to do and execute all or any of the following acts and deeds subject to

our approval:

xxx xxx xxx

(2) To represent us in the negotiations for a compromise with the National

Housing Authority for our properties subject of the above case;

(3) To negotiate for and in our behalves for the settlement of the just

compensation of our properties payable in cash or in bonds;

(4) To sign and prepare all papers relative to the preparation of a Compromise

Agreement or any papers and communications which shall eventually bear our

signatures; and

(5) That this Special Power of Attorney is enforce (sic) as long as ATTYS.

ROMEO G. ROXAS AND SANTIAGO PASTOR are our lawyers in Civil Case

No. 26804 before the Regional Trial Court, Makati, Branch CXLI.

HEREBY GIVING AND GRANTING unto our said attorneys full

power and authority whatsoever requisite or necessary or proper to be done in or

about the premises, as fully to all intents and purposes as we might or could

lawfully do if personally present, and hereby ratifying and confirming all that

our said attorneys shall do or cause to be done under and by virtue of these

presents. SaCIDT

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, We have hereunto set our hands this 26th

day of August, 1985, in Makati, M. M., Philippines.

(Sgd.)

ANTONIO DE ZUZUARREGUI, JR.

8/9/2019 C20 & R20.01

5/24


(Sgd.)

ENRIQUE DE ZUZUARREGUI

(Sgd.)

PACITA JAVIER10(10)

On 22 November 1985, a Special Power of Attorney was executed by Beatriz

Zuzuarregui vda. De Reyes in favor of Attys. Romeo G. Roxas, Santiago Pastor and

Basilio H. Toquero, quoted as follows:

SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:

That I, BEATRIZ ZUZUARREGUI VDA. DE REYES, Filipino, of legal

age, widow, and a resident of E. Rodriguez Ave., Quezon City, Philippines dohereby appoint, name and constitute ATTYS. ROMEO G. ROXAS,

SANTIAGO PASTOR and BASILIO H. TOQUERO, to be my true and lawful

attorneys . . . :

1. To represent me in the negotiation for a Compromise with the National

Housing Authority for my properties subject to my approval in CIVIL CASE

No. 26804, entitled " ational Housing Authority vs. Pilar Ibaez de

Zuzuarregui, et al., before the Regional Trial Court, Makati, Branch CXLI;

2. To negotiate for and in my behalf for the settlement of the just

compensation of my properties payable in cash or in bond, subject to myapproval;

3. To sign and prepare all papers relative to the preparation of a Compromise

Agreement or any papers and communications which shall eventually bear my

signature;

4. To accept for and in my behalf payments for my properties after the

Compromise Agreement is duly approved by the Court, the actual receipts of

which payments shall be signed by me.

HEREBY GIVING AND GRANTING unto my said attorneys full powerand authority whatsoever requisite, necessary or proper . . . to be done under and

by virtue of these presents.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 22nd day of

November 1985, in the City of Manila, Philippines.

8/9/2019 C20 & R20.01

6/24


(Sgd.)

BEATRIZ ZUZUARREGUI VDA. DE

REYES 11(11)

On 10 December 1985, a Letter-Agreement was executed by and betweenAntonio Zuzuarregui, Jr., Pacita Javier and Enrique De Zuzuarregui, on the one hand,

and Attys. Romeo G. Roxas and Santiago Pastor, on the other. The said

Letter-Agreement reads:

December 10, 1985

Atty. Romeo G. Roxas

Atty. Santiago Pastor

Makati Executive Center

Salcedo Village, Makati

Dear Atty. Roxas & Atty. Pastor:

This will confirm an amendment to our agreement regarding your attorney's fees

as our lawyers and counsels for the Zuzuarregui's properties expropriated by

National Housing Authority covering ONE HUNDRED SEVENTY-NINE (179)

HECTARES, more or less, covered by TCT Nos. 138340, 85633 and 85634 and

filed as Civil Case No. 26804.

We hereby confirm and agree that we are willing to accept as final and complete

settlement for our 179 hectares expropriated by NHA a price of SEVENTEEN

PESOS (P17.00) per square meter, or for a total of THIRTY MILLION FOURHUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P30.4 Million), all payable in NHA Bonds.

DcITHE

We also agree and confirm that for and in consideration of your services as our

lawyers and counsels in the said expropriation case, we commit and bind

ourselves to pay to you, your heirs or assignees-in-interest, as your contingent

attorney's fees any and all amount in excess of the SEVENTEEN PESOS

(P17.00) per square meter payable in NHA bonds as mentioned above.

This Letter Agreement serves also as your authority to collect directly from

NHA the amount pertaining to you as your contingent attorney's fees.

This Letter Agreement hereby amends and supersedes our previous agreement

regarding your attorney's fees as our lawyers and counsels in the

above-mentioned expropriation case.

8/9/2019 C20 & R20.01

7/24


Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) (Sgd.)

ANTONIO DE ZUZUARREGUI, JR. PACITA JAVIER

In my behalf as heir to As heir to the latethe late Pilar I. vda. de Jose De Zuzuarregui

Zuzuarregui

(Sgd.)

ENRIQUE DE ZUZUARREGUI

CONFORME:

(Sgd.) (Sgd.)

ATTY. ROMEO G. ROXAS ATTY. SANTIAGO PASTOR12(12)

Resolution No. 1174 13(13) dated 16 December 1985 was issued by the NHA

stating that the Zuzuarregui property would be acquired at a cost of P19.50 per square

meter; that the Zuzuarreguis would be paid in NHA Bonds, subject to the availability

of funds; and that the yield on the bonds to be paid to the Zuzuarreguis shall be based

on the Central Bank rate at the time of payment.

As a result of the aforesaid NHA Resolution, a Compromise Agreement was

executed between the Zuzuarreguis and the NHA in Civil Case No. 26804. The

Compromise Agreement, stipulated among other things, that the just compensation of

the Zuzuarregui properties would be at P19.50 per square meter payable in NHABonds. In a Decision dated 20 December 1985, the RTC, Branch 141, Makati,

approved the Compromise Agreement submitted by the parties.

On 27 December 1985, the NHA Legal Department, through Atty. Jose B. H.

Pedrosa, released to Atty. Romeo G. Roxas, in behalf of the Zuzuarreguis, the amount

of P20,000,000.00 in NHA Bearer Bonds as "partial payment for several parcels of

land with a total area of 1,790,570.36 square meters located in Antipolo, Rizal." 14(14)

On even date, Atty. Romeo G. Roxas delivered NHA Bonds to Antonio De

Zuzuarregui in the amount of P15,000,000.00. 15(15) On 04 February 1986, the

amount of P34,500,000.00 in Bearer Bonds was again released by the NHA to Atty.Romeo G. Roxas in behalf of the Zuzuarreguis. 16(16) On 14 February 1986, the

Zuzuarreguis issued a receipt 17(17) for receiving the amount of P30,070,000.00. This

receipt included the P15,000,000.00 given to them last 27 December 1985. Again on

17 February 1986, the Zuzuarreguis, through Beatriz Zuzuarregui vda. De Reyes,

issued another receipt for the amount of P450,000.00 in NHA bonds. 18(18) The total

8/9/2019 C20 & R20.01

8/24


amount in NHA bonds released to Atty. Romeo G. Roxas in behalf of the

Zuzuarreguis amounted to P54,500,000.00. Out of this amount, the records show that

the amount turned over to the Zuzuarreguis by Atty. Roxas amounted to

P30,520,000.00 in NHA bonds.

Computed at P19.50 per square meter, the 1,790,570.36 square meters property

of the Zuzuarreguis was expropriated at a total price of P34,916,122.00. The total

amount released by the NHA was P54,500,000.00. The difference of P19,583,878.00

is, undoubtedly, the yield on the bonds.

On 25 August 1987, a letter 19(19) was sent by the Zuzuarreguis' new counsel,

Jose F. Gonzalez, to Attys. Roxas and Pastor, demanding that the latter deliver to the

Zuzuarreguis the yield corresponding to bonds paid by the NHA within a period of 10

days from receipt, under pain of administrative, civil and/or criminal action.

Attys. Roxas and Pastor answered via a letter dated 21 September 1987

explaining their side of the story. They stated therein, among other things, that the

amount that they got seems huge from the surface, but it just actually passed their

hands, as it did not really go to them. 20(20)

On 29 September 1987, a letter 21(21) was sent by the Zuzuarreguis through

Antonio De Zuzuarregui, Jr., to Attys. Romeo G. Roxas and Santiago N. Pastor,

informing the latter that their services as counsels of the Zuzuarreguis (except Betty)

in the expropriation proceedings filed by the NHA, docketed as Civil Case No. 26804,

was being formally terminated.

Apparently unsatisfied with the explanation of Attys. Roxas and Pastor, the

Zuzuarreguis filed a civil action for Sum of Money and Damages on 14 November

1989 before the RTC, Quezon City, Branch 98, docketed as Civil Case No.

Q-89-4013, against the NHA, Jose B. H. Pedrosa, Atty. Romeo G. Roxas and Atty.

Santiago N. Pastor. The Zuzuarreguis demanded that the yield on the NHA bonds be

turned over to them.

After due hearing, a Decision 22(22) in Civil Case No. Q-89-4013 was rendered

on 03 January 1994, dismissing the Complaint. The dispositive portion reads:

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing consideration[s], judgment is

hereby rendered ordering the dismissal of the complaint against all the

defendants; and, further ordering plaintiffs, jointly and solidarily, to:

1. Pay each of the defendants Romeo G. Roxas, Santiago Pastor and

8/9/2019 C20 & R20.01

9/24


Jose B. H. Perdosa, the amount of P200,000.00, P200,000.00 and

P100,000.00, respectively, as moral damages;

2. Pay each of the defendants Roxas, Pastor and Pedrosa, the amount

of P50,000.00, P50,000.00, and P25,000.00, respectively as exemplary

damages;

3. Pay attorney's fees to defendants Roxas and Pastor in the amount of

P20,000.00; and

4. Pay the costs of this suit.

A Notice of Appeal 23(23) dated 10 February 1994 was filed by the

Zuzuarreguis. Subsequently, on 26 April 1995, the Zuzuarreguis filed their appeal

brief with the Court of Appeals. The case was docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 45732.

A Decision 24(24) was eventually promulgated by the Fifteenth Division of the

Court of Appeals on 25 June 2001, reversing and setting aside the ruling of Branch

98, viz:

Therefore, We find that the amount of P4,476,426.275 is, in the opinion

of this Court, commensurate to the services rendered by defendants-appellees.

This amount has been arrived at by giving to defendants-appellees P2.50 per

square meter of the 1,790,570.51 square meter expropriated properties of herein

plaintiffs-appellants.

WHEREFORE, I VIEW OF THE FOREGOIG, the decisiondated January 3, 1994 of the Regional Trial Court, National Capital Judicial

Region, Branch 98, Quezon City in Civil Case No. 89-4013 entitled "Antonio

Zuzuarregui, Jr., et al. versus ational Housing Authority, et al." for "Sum of

Money and Damages," is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE.

Defendants-Appellees Roxas and Pastor are hereby ordered to return to

plaintiffs-appellants the amount of P12,596,696.425, the balance from the

P17,073,122.70, received as yield from NHA bonds after deducting the

reasonable attorney's fees in the amount of P4,476,426.275. 25(25)

Attys. Roxas and Pastor filed a Motion for Reconsideration26(26)

on 25 July2001. The Zuzuarreguis also filed a Motion for Reconsideration 27(27) on 30 July 2001,

not having been satisfied with the award, while the NHA and Pedrosa filed their

Motions for Reconsideration 28(28) on 03 August 2001. ACcEHI

In a Resolution dated 06 February 2002, the Court of Appeals denied for lack

of merit all the Motions for Reconsideration.

8/9/2019 C20 & R20.01

10/24


On 05 March 2002, Attys. Roxas and Pastor filed a Petition for Review on

Certiorari29(29) assailing the Decision of the Court of Appeals, docketed as G.R. No.

152072. Likewise, on 21 March 2002, the Zuzuarreguis filed their own Petition for

Review on Certiorari30(30) assailing the same Decision, docketed as G.R. No. 152104.

ASSIGMET OF ERRORS

Attys. Roxas and Pastor, petitioners in G.R. No. 152072, assign as errors the

following:

I

THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED ON A

QUESTION OF LAW IN HOLDING THAT THE LETTER-AGREEMENT

DATED DECEMBER 10, 1985 CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO STAND ASTHE LAW BETWEEN THE PARTIES; and

II

THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED ON A

QUESTION OF LAW IN HOLDING THAT DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS,

HEREIN PETITIONERS, CONCEALED TO THE PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES,

HEREIN RESPONDENTS, THE YIELD OF THE NHA BONDS 31(31)

The Zuzuarreguis, petitioners in G.R. No. 152101, on the other hand, assign as

errors the following:

I

THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN AWARDING TO PETITIONERS

THE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF ONLY P12,596,696.425 AND NOT

P17,073,122.70 MAKING A DIFFERENCE OF P4,476,426.28

II

THE RESPONDENTS SHOULD BE HELD LIABLE FOR INTEREST FROM

THE DATE OF THE FILING OF THE COMPLAINT UNTIL FULLY PAID

III

THE RESPONDENTS SHOULD BE HELD LIABLE FOR MORAL AND

EXEMPLARY DAMAGES AND ATTORNEY'S FEES

8/9/2019 C20 & R20.01

11/24


IV

THE RESPONDENTS NHA AND JOSE B.H. PEDROSA ARE JOINTLY

AND SEVERALLY LIABLE WITH RESPONDENTS ROXAS AND PASTOR

32(32)

ISSUE FOR RESOLUTIO

Drawn from the above assignment of errors, it is patent that the principal issue

that must be addressed by this Court is:

WHETHER OR NOT THE LETTER-AGREEMENT DATED 10 DECEMBER

1985, EXECUTED BY THE ZUZUARREGUIS, AND ATTYS. ROXAS AND

PASTOR, FIXING THE EXACT AMOUNT THAT MUST GO TO THE

FORMER, SHOULD STAND AS LAW BETWEEN THE PARTIES.

THE COURT'S RULIG

Attys. Roxas and Pastor, petitioners in G.R. No. 152072, contend in the main

that the Zuzuarreguis are only entitled to the amount of P17.00 per square meter for

the 1,790,570.36 square meters expropriated by the government. This was, according

to them, embodied in the Letter-Agreement dated 10 December 1985, wherein the

Zuzuarreguis agreed to accept the price of P17.00 per square meter. Besides, Attys.

Roxas and Pastor contend that the price of P17.00 was even way above the P11.00

that the Zuzuarreguis were willing to accept for their properties under the Letter of

Engagement executed by the parties earlier on 22 April 1983. Computed at P17.00 persquare meter, they stress that the amount that should go to the Zuzuarreguis for their

1,790,570.36 square meters property should be P30,439,696.10, and that in fact the

Zuzuarreguis have received P30,520,000.00. The Letter-Agreement dated 10

December 1985 should thus stand as law between the parties. Since this

Letter-Agreement, which was "as plain and simple as can be such that there is no need

for any further construction," already fixed the amount that would go to the

Zuzuarreguis (P17.00 per square meter), then it should be so. ASHaDT

Attys. Roxas and Pastor further assert that the receipts issued by the

Zuzuarreguis dated 14 February 1986 and 17 February 1986 indicated that the

amounts received by the latter were in "full and final payment" for the subject

properties.

The NHA, for its part, insists that there was no conspiracy between Attys.

Roxas and Pastor on the one hand, and the NHA and Atty. Pedrosa on the other, on

8/9/2019 C20 & R20.01

12/24


the application of yields from NHA bonds. 33(33) The Zuzuarreguis, according to the

NHA, "miserably failed to substantiate and establish conspiracy" between them.

The Zuzuarreguis, for their part, though they were triumphant in the Court of

Appeals, insist that the amounts awarded them were not enough. According to them,the P12,596,696.425 awarded by the Court of Appeals was not correct. They should

have been awarded the amount of P17,073,122.70. Quoting the Zuzuarreguis:

Respondents Roxas and Pastor retained for themselves the amount of

P3,980,000.00 which represented the agreed attorney's fees of Roxas and Pastor

at P2.50 per square meter. The amount of P20,000,000.00 representing the yield

of all the bearer bonds was, in the words of the Court of Appeals, "deliberately

hidden" by respondents Roxas and Pastor from petitioners. By mathematical

computation, the P20,000,000.00 yield should be proportionately divided at the

ratio of P17.00 (petitioners') and P2.50 (share of respondents Roxas and Pastor).

Following this ratio of division, of the P20,000,000.00 yield, P17,073,122.70

should pertain to petitioners and the balance of P2,926,877.30 to respondents

Roxas and Pastor. Add this amount to the total of P3,980,000.00 at the agreed

rate of P2.50 per square meter, the total attorney's fees of respondents Roxas and

Pastor should be P6,906,877.30, not bad, again in the words of the Court of

Appeals, for handling "a simple expropriation case which ended up in a

compromise agreement." It was, therefore, in error to still deduct the amount of

P4,476,426.28 from petitioners share in the yield in the amount of

P17,073,122.70 leaving then only P12,596,696.42.

What was done, however, is that the product of 1,790,570.36 sq m. (areaof the expropriated land of petitioners) and P2.50 which is 4,476,426.28 was

again deducted from the P17,073,122.70 which is the corresponding share of the

petitioners out of the total yield of P20,000,000.00. If this were a criminal case,

petitioners were being sentenced twice for the same offense. 34(34)

The Zuzuarreguis further insist that legal interest on the amount of

P17,073,122.70 be imposed from the date of the filing of the complaint, including

moral and exemplary damages, and attorney's fees.

We sustain the Court of Appeals, but with modification in the computation.

A contract is a meeting of the minds between two persons whereby one binds

himself, with respect to the other, to give something or to render some service. 35(35)

Contracts shall be obligatory, in whatever form they may have been entered into,

provided all the essential requisites for their validity are present. 36(36)

8/9/2019 C20 & R20.01

13/24


Under Article 1318 of the Civil Code, there are three essential requisites which

must concur in order to give rise to a binding contract: (1) consentof the contracting

parties; (2) object certain which is the subject matter of the contract; and (3) cause of

the obligation which is established. 37(37)

All these requisites were present in the execution of the Letter-Agreement.

Consent is manifested by the meeting of the offer and the acceptance upon the

thing and the cause which are to constitute the contract. 38(38) The Zuzuarreguis, in

entering into the Letter-Agreement, fully gave their consent thereto. In fact, it was

them (the Zuzuarreguis) who sent the said letter to Attys. Roxas and Pastor, for the

purpose of confirming all the matters which they had agreed upon previously. There is

absolutely no evidence to show that anybody was forced into entering into the

Letter-Agreement. Verily, its existence, due execution and contents were admitted by

the Zuzuarreguis themselves. 39(39)

The second requisite is the object certain. The objects in this case are twofold.

One is the money that will go to the Zuzuarreguis (P17.00 per square meter), and two,

the money that will go to Attys. Roxas and Pastor (any and all amount in excess of

P17.00 per square meter). There was certainty as to the amount that will go to the

Zuzuarreguis, and there was likewise certainty as to what amount will go to Attys.

Roxas and Pastor.

The cause is the legal service that was provided by Attys. Roxas and Pastor. In

general, cause is the why of the contract or the essential reason which moves the

contracting parties to enter into the contract. 40(40)

It is basic that a contract is the law between the parties. 41(41) Obligations

arising from contracts have the force of law between the contracting parties and

should be complied with in good faith. Unless the stipulations in a contract are

contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy, the same are

binding as between the parties. 42(42)

In Licudan v. Court of Appeals, 43(43) we did not allow the Contract for

Professional Services between the counsel and his client to stand as the law between

them as the stipulation for the lawyer's compensation was unconscionable and

unreasonable. We said:

Although the Contract for Professional Services dated August 30, 1979

was apparently voluntarily signed by the late Aurelio Licudan for himself and on

8/9/2019 C20 & R20.01

14/24


behalf of his daughter, petitioner Cristina Licudan-Campos and by the petitioner

Wilfredo Licudan who both manifested in open court that they gave their free

and willing consent to the said contract, we cannot allow the said contract to

stand as the law between the parties involved considering that the rule that in the

presence of a contract for professional services duly executed by the partiesthereto, the same becomes the law between the said parties is not absolute but

admits an exception that the stipulations therein are not contrary to law, good

morals, good customs, public policy or public order. 44(44)

Under the contract in question, Attys. Roxas and Pastor are to receive

contingent fees 45(45) for their professional services. It is a deeply-rooted rule that

contingent fees are not per se prohibited by law. They are sanctioned by Canon 13 of

the Canons of Professional Ethics, viz:

13. Contingent Fees.

A contract for contingent fee, where sanctioned by law, should be

reasonable under all the circumstances of the case including the risk and

uncertainty of the compensation, but should always be subject to the supervision

of a court, as to its reasonableness. SDTIaE

and Canon 20, Rule 20.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, 46(46)viz:

CANON 20 A LAWYER SHALL CHARGE ONLY FAIR AND

REASONABLE FEES.

Rule 20.01. A lawyer shall be guided by the following factors in determining

his fees:

(a) The time spent and the extent of the services rendered or required;

(b) The novelty and difficulty of the question involved;

(c) The importance of the subject matter;

(d) The skill demanded;

(e) The probability of losing other employment as a result of acceptance ofthe proffered case;

(f) The customary charges for similar services and the schedule of fees of

the IBP chapter to which he belongs;

(g) The amount involved in the controversy and the benefits resulting to the

8/9/2019 C20 & R20.01

15/24


client from the service;

(h) The contingency or certainty of compensation;

(i) The character of the employment, whether occasional or established; and

(j) The professional standing of the lawyer.

However, in cases where contingent fees are sanctioned by law, the same

should be reasonable under all the circumstances of the case, and should always be

subject to the supervision of a court, as to its reasonableness, 47(47) such that under

Canon 20 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, a lawyer is tasked to charge only

fair and reasonable fees.

Indubitably entwined with the lawyer's duty to charge only reasonable fees is

the power of this Court to reduce the amount of attorney's fees if the same is excessiveand unconscionable. 48(48) Thus, Section 24, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court partly

states:

SEC. 24. Compensation of attorneys; agreement as to fees. An attorney

shall be entitled to have and 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. . . . . A written contract for services shall

control the amount to be paid therefore unless found by the court to be

unconscionable or unreasonable.

Attorney's fees are unconscionable if they affront one's sense of justice,

decency or reasonableness. 49(49) It becomes axiomatic therefore, that power to

determine the reasonableness or the, unconscionable character of attorney's fees

stipulated by the parties is a matter falling within the regulatory prerogative of the

courts. 50(50)

In the instant case, Attys. Roxas and Pastor received an amount which was

equal to forty-four percent (44%) of the just compensation paid (including the yield on

the bonds) by the NHA to the Zuzuarreguis, or an amount equivalent to

P23,980,000.00 of the P54,500,000.00. Considering that there was no full blown

hearing in the expropriation case, ending as it did in a Compromise Agreement, the

44% is, undeniably, unconscionable and excessive under the circumstances. Its

reduction is, therefore, in order. This is in accordance with our ruling in the earlier

case ofTanhueco v. De Dumo 51(51), where we reduced the amount of attorney's fees

from sixty percent (60%) to fifteen percent (15%), for being excessive and

8/9/2019 C20 & R20.01

16/24


unreasonable.

It is imperative that the contingent fees received by Attys. Roxas and Pastor

must be equitably reduced. In the opinion of this Court, the yield that corresponds to

the percentage share of the Zuzuarreguis in the P19.50 per square meter justcompensation paid by the NHA must be returned by Attys. Roxas and Pastor. HICEca

The yield on the NHA bonds amounted to P19,583,878.00. This amount must

therefore be divided between the Zuzuarreguis, on the one hand, and Attys. Roxas and

Pastor, on the other. The division must be pro rata. The amount of P17.00 that should

go to the Zuzuarreguis represents 87.18% of the P19.50 per square meter just

compensation, The P2.50 per square meter that was to go to Attys. Roxas and Pastor,

on the other hand, represents 12.82%.

The Zuzuarreguis are entitled to the yield equal to 87.18% of theP19,583,878.00, while Attys. Roxas and Pastor are entitled to 12.82% of said amount.

The amount corresponding to 87.17% of P19,583,878.00 is P17,073,224.84. This is

the yield that the Zuzuarreguis are entitled to. Attys. Roxas and Pastor, on the other

hand, are entitled to P2,510,653.16.

Attys. Roxas and Pastor, in the opinion of this Court, were not shortchanged

for their efforts for they would still be earning or actually earned attorney's fees in the

amount of P6,987,078.75 (P4,476,425.59 + P2,510,653.16).

The amount of P17,073,224.84 must therefore be returned by Attys. Roxas andPastor to the Zuzuarreguis. They can take this out from the yield in the amount of

P19,583,878.00 which they have appropriated for themselves.

On the issue of moral and exemplary damages, we cannot award the same for

there was no direct showing of bad faith on the part of Attys. Roxas and Pastor, for as

we said earlier, contingency fees are not per se prohibited by law. It is only necessary

that it be reduced when excessive and unconscionable, which we have already done.

We likewise cannot hold the NHA and Atty. Pedrosa jointly and severally

liable to the Zuzuarreguis for there is no evidence to show conspiracy between them.

WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing considerations, the Decision and

Resolution of the Court of Appeals dated 25 June 2001 and 06 February 2002,

respectively, are AFFIRMED but with the MODIFICATION that Attys. Romeo G.

Roxas and Santiago N. Pastor are hereby ordered to return to the Zuzuarreguis the

8/9/2019 C20 & R20.01

17/24


amount of P17,073,224.84. No costs.

SO ORDERED.

8/9/2019 C20 & R20.01

18/24


Endnotes

1 (Popup - Popup)

1. Rollo (G.R. No. 152072), pp. 10-55; Rollo (G.R. No. 152104), pp. 9-23.

2 (Popup - Popup)

2. Id. (G.R. No. 152104), p. 356.

3 (Popup - Popup)

3. Id. (G.R. No. 152072), pp. 57-80, penned by Associate Justice Remedios

Salazar-Fernando with then Associate Justice later Presiding Justice Romeo A.

Brawner and Associate Justice Rebecca De Guia-Salvador, concurring.

4 (Popup - Popup)

4. Id. (G.R. No. 152072), pp. 82-83.

5 (Popup - Popup)

5. Now City of Makati.

6 (Popup - Popup)

6. Folder of Exhibits, p. 79.

7 (Popup - Popup)

7. Id., pp. 89-90.

8 (Popup - Popup)

8. Id., pp. 57-58.

8/9/2019 C20 & R20.01

19/24


9 (Popup - Popup)

9. Id., pp. 59-64.

10 (Popup - Popup)

10. Id., pp. 91-92.

11 (Popup - Popup)

11. Id., pp. 54-55.

12 (Popup - Popup)12. Id., p. 9.

13 (Popup - Popup)

13. Id., p. 10.

14 (Popup - Popup)

14. Id., p. 15.

15 (Popup - Popup)

15. Id., p. 45.

16 (Popup - Popup)

16. Id., p. 16.

17 (Popup - Popup)

17. Id., p. 49.

8/9/2019 C20 & R20.01

20/24


18 (Popup - Popup)

18. CA decision, p. 15.

19 (Popup - Popup)

19. Folder of Exhibits, pp. 20-21.

20 (Popup - Popup)

20. Id., p. 25.

21 (Popup - Popup)21. Id., p. 46.

22 (Popup - Popup)

22. Rollo (G.R. No. 152072), pp. 84-113.

23 (Popup - Popup)

23. Records, pp. 404-405.

24 (Popup - Popup)

24. Rollo (G.R. No. 152072), pp. 57-80.

25 (Popup - Popup)

25. CA decision, pp. 23-24.

26 (Popup - Popup)

26. CA rollo, pp. 233-260.

8/9/2019 C20 & R20.01

21/24


27 (Popup - Popup)

27. Id., pp. 264-270.

28 (Popup - Popup)

28. Id., pp. 272-278.

29 (Popup - Popup)

29. Rollo (G.R. No. 152072), pp. 10-55.

30 (Popup - Popup)30. Id. (G.R. No. 152104), pp. 9-23.

31 (Popup - Popup)

31. Id. (G.R. No. 152072), p. 25.

32 (Popup - Popup)

32. Id. (G.R. No. 152104), pp. 13-17.

33 (Popup - Popup)

33. Rollo (G.R. No. 152072), p. 257.

34 (Popup - Popup)

34. Petition for Certiorari (G.R. No. 152104), p. 6.

35 (Popup - Popup)

35. CIVIL CODE, Art. 1305.

8/9/2019 C20 & R20.01

22/24


36 (Popup - Popup)


37 (Popup - Popup)

37. Paderes v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 147075, 15 July 2005, 463 SCRA 504, 521.

38 (Popup - Popup)


39 (Popup - Popup)39. Order of the RTC dated 16 March 1990; Main Records, p. 101.

40 (Popup - Popup)

40. Jurado, COMMENTS AND JURISPRUDENCE ON OBLIGATIONS AND

CONTRACTS, p. 454, 9th Revised Edition, 1987, citing Manresa, 5th Ed., Bk. 2, pp.

445-446.

41 (Popup - Popup)

41. Almeda v. Court of Appeals, 326 Phil. 309, 316 (1996); Reta v. National Labor

Relations Commission, G.R. No. 112100, 27 May 1994, 232 SCRA 613, 616; City of

Manila v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 71159, 15 November 1989, 179

SCRA 428, 436; Bagadiong v. Vda. De Abundo, G.R. No. 75395, 19 September

1988, 165 SCRA 459, 463.

42 (Popup - Popup)

42. In Re: Ricardo P. Presbiterio, Sr. v. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 102432, 21

January 1993, 217 SCRA 372, 373.

43 (Popup - Popup)

43. G.R. No. 91958, 24 January 1991, 193 SCRA 293.

8/9/2019 C20 & R20.01

23/24


44 (Popup - Popup)

44. Licudan v. Court of Appeals, supra, pp. 300-301.

45 (Popup - Popup)

45. A contingent fee is a fee charged for a lawyer's services only if the lawsuit is

successful or is favorably settled out of court (BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY, p.

315, 7th Edition [1999]).

46 (Popup - Popup)

46. Licudan v. Court of Appeals, supra note 43, p. 301.

47 (Popup - Popup)

47. CANONS OF PROFESSIONAL ETHICS, Section 13.

48 (Popup - Popup)

48. New Sampaguita Builders Construction, Inc. (NSBCI) v. Philippine National Bank,

G.R. No. 148753, 30 July 2004, 435 SCRA 565, 592; citing Bachrach Garage and

Taxicab Co., Inc. v. Golingco, 39 Phil. 912, 920-921 (1919); Bachrach v. Golingco,

39 Phil. 138, 143-144 (1918); Sangrador v. Spouses Valderrama, G.R. No. L-79552,

29 November 1988, 168 SCRA 215, 229.

49 (Popup - Popup)

49. BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY, p. 1526, 7th Ed. (1999).

50 (Popup - Popup)

50. De Santos v. City of Manila, 150-A Phil. 798, 805 (1972); Kalalo v. Luz, 145 Phil.

152, 174 (1970); Cruz v. Court of Industrial Relations, 118 Phil. 820, 825 (1963).

8/9/2019 C20 & R20.01

24/24


51 (Popup - Popup)

51. Adm. Cases Nos. 1437 and 1683, 25 April 1989.

c20 & r20.01

Documents