ATTORNEY’S FEES AND

COMPENSATION FOR
LEGAL SERVICES
RULE 138 SEC. 24
Compensation of attorney’s; agreement as to fees- An attorney
shall be entitled to have and recover from his client no more than
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. No court shall be bound by the opinion of an attorneys
as an expert witnesses as to the proper compensation, but may
disregard such testimony and base its conclusion on its own
professional knowledge. A written contract for services shall
control the amount to be paid therefor unless found by the court
to be unconscionable or unreasonable.
ART. 138 SEC. 32
Compensation for attorney’s de officio- an attorney employed
counsel de officio shall be compensated in such sum as the court
may fix in accordance with Sec. 24 of this rule. Whenever such
compensation is allowed, it shall be less than thirty pesos (P30)
in case, nor more than the following amounts: 1) fifty pesos
(P50) in light felonies; 2) one hundred pesos (P100) in less grave
felonies; 3) two hundred pesos (P200) in grave felonies other
than capital offenses; 4) five hundred pesos (P500) in capital
offenses.
CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY-
CANON 20
“ A lawyer shall charge only fair and reasonable fees.”

Rule 20.1-Factors determining lawyer’s fee:

• Time spent and extent of services rendered or required.
• Novelty and difficulty of the questions involved.
• Importance of the subject matter.
• The skill demanded.
• Probability of losing other employment as a result of acceptance
of the case.
• Customary charges and schedule of fees of the IBP chapter he
belongs.
• Amount involved in the controversy and the benefits resulting to
the client from the service.
• Contingency and certainty of compensation.
• Character of the employment whether ocassional or established;
and
• Professional standing of the lawyer.
Sps. Emilio and Alicia Jacinto vs. Atty. Emelie
Bangot
A. C. No. 8494 ,October 5,2016
Facts:
Sps. Emilio and Alicia Jacinto, then 81 and 76 years old filed an
administrative case against Atty. Bangot for the unjust and dishonest
treatment towards his client.
The spouses consulted Atty. Bangot regarding intrusion of
property with their land in Cagayan de Oro. During discussions and
agreement, it was then that Atty. Bangot indirectly told them that one
of lot equivalent to 250 sq.m. shall be considered as his attorney’s fee
and in fact ultimately consented by the spouses.
 After said discussion, he then prepared for a Memorandum of
Agreement. During October 2008, the spouses received a call from
Atty. Bangot directing them to come over his place for the signing of
their agreement. Due to their trust reposed with Atty Bangot, they
immediately signed the memorandum without reading it. Upon
arrival at their house, they were surprised that the memorandum of
agreement does not reflect the original intentions and even ask for
revocations in which the lawyer refuse. Thus, a complaint was filed
and later on referred to the Integrated to Bar of the Philippines.

Issue:
Whether or not Atty. Bangot violate his ethical duties by
deceiving his employee as regards to his attorney’s fee.
Held:
Yes, Atty. Bangot was guilty in violation of the lawyer’s oath
and code of professional responsibility and suspends him for 5
years in the practice of law.
The rules provide that an attorney shall be entitled to have a
reasonable compensation for his services. Also, in relation to this,
Canon 15 provides that “ A lawyer shall observe candor, fairness,
and loyalty in all his dealings and transaction with his client.”
Lastly, Canon 20 states that “a lawyer shall charge only fair and
reasonable fees.”
Here, Atty. Bangot’s behavior and deceit demonstrated a
self-gain that transgressed his sworn oath making it justifiable for
his suspension for 5 years in the practice of law.
Aquino vs. Casabar G.R. No. 191470
January 26,2015
Facts:

Atty. Angel Domingo contracted Atty. Aquino to represent him in

Agrarian case on a contingency fee basis. On September 30,2007,
Atty. Domingo died and Atty. Aquino then filed a manifestation of the
fact Atty. Domingo’s death. During 2009, Atty. Aquino then wrote to
Ala Domingo and informed her about the finality of the RTC/SAC
decision as affirmed by the CA. He then requested Ala Domingo for
the segregation of the petitioner’s 30 % contingent attorneys fees out
of the increase just compensation for the subject property or total of
30 % of the total increase amounting to P1,975,983.43. However,
petitioner then claimed to have never received reply from Ala
Domingo.
 On July 28, 2009, petitioner received a Notice of Appearance
dated July 16, 2009 filed by Atty. Antonio G. Conde, entering his
appearance as counsel of herein private respondents and replacing
him as counsel in Agrarian Case No. 1217-G.

On August 12, 2009, petitioner filed a Motion for Approval of

Charging Attorney's Lien and for the Order of Payment.Petitioner
further executed an Affidavit dated August 10, 2009, attesting to the
circumstances surrounding the legal services he has rendered for the
deceased Atty. Domingo and the successful prosecution of the
Agrarian case from the RTC/SAC through the appellate court and the
Supreme Court.
 On August 18, 2009, private respondents filed a Motion to
Dismiss/Expunge Petitioner's Motion. Public respondent Presiding
Judge Casabar denied the same. Private respondents moved for
reconsideration.
On January 11, 2010, public respondent Judge Casabar issued
the disputed Order denying petitioner's motion for approval of
attorney's lien, court has no jurisdiction over Atty. Aquino's motion
for approval of charging (Attorney's) lien having been filed after the
judgment has become final and executory.

Issue:
Whether or not Atty. Aquino shall be entitled to attorneys fees
even if he had lost jurisdiction on the represented case?
Held:

Yes, Atty. Aquino shall be entitled to such claim.

The attorney’s fees being claimed by the petitioner is the
compensation for professional services rendered, and not an
indemnity for damages. Petitioner is claiming payment from private
respondents for the successful outcome of the agrarian case which he
represented. We see no valid reason why public respondent cannot
pass upon a proper petition to determine attorney's fees considering
that it is already familiar with the nature and the extent of
petitioner's legal services.
It is well settled that a claim for attorney’s fees may be asserted
either in the very action in which the services of a lawyer had been
rendered or in a separate action.
Masmud vs . NLRC and Atty. Rolando Go Jr.
G. R. No. 183385 February 13,2009
Facts:

Alexander and Evangelina Masmud filed a complaint against First

Victory Shipping Services and Angellakos for the non-payment of permanent
disability benefits, medical expenses, sickness allowance, moral and
exemplary damages, and attorneys fees. Alexander then engaged the services
of Atty. Go and later on agreed as contingent basis on a 20% total monetary
claims as settled or paid and an additional 10% in an appeal cases. It was also
agreed that any award shall pertain to Atty. Go’s law firm as compensation.
The Labor Arbiter rendered the decision in favor of Alexander but
dismissed the claim for payment of medical expenses thus an appeal was filed
under NLRC. Upon pendency of the case, Alexander died. The decision of the
NLRC dismissed the case and later on become final and executory. Atty Go
then moved for the release of the said amount to Angelina.
 Evangelina then paid Atty. Go for the sum of P680,000.
Dissatisfied, Atty. Go then filed a motion and enforce the
attorneys lien to Evangelina alleging the promise of the
contingent fee agreement. However, Evangelina contend that the
contingent fee agreement was null and void based on Art.111 of
the Labor Code and it shall only be 10 % of the amount of wages
recovered. The court rendered the decision in favor of Atty. Go
and later on affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

Issue:
Whether or not the contingent fee should be granted and be
included as compensation of Atty. Go ?
Held:

Yes, the CA affirmed the decision of the court that Atty. Go

should be entitled to receive for representing Evangelina, in
substitution of her husband, before the tribunals and court. The
Art. 111 of the Labor Code cannot be applied in this case because
it deals with the extra-ordinary concept of the attorneys fee. It
regulates the amount recoverable as attorney's fees in the nature
of damages sustained by and awarded to the prevailing party. It
may not be used as the standard in fixing the amount payable to
the lawyer by his client for the legal services he rendered.

The Court finds nothing illegal in the contingent fee contract

between Atty. Go and Evangelinas husband. The CA committed
no error of law when it awarded the attorneys fees of Atty. Go
and allowed him to receive an equivalent of 39% of the monetary
award.
 The retainer contract between Atty. Go and Evangelina provides for a
contingent fee. The contract shall control in the determination of the
amount to be paid, 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.[ The decree of
unconscionability or unreasonableness of a stipulated amount in a
contingent fee contract will not preclude recovery. It merely justifies the
fixing by the court of a reasonable compensation for the lawyer's services.
Considering that Atty. Go successfully represented his client, it is
only proper that he should receive adequate compensation for his
efforts. Even as we agree with the reduction of the award of attorney's
fees by the CA, the fact that a lawyer plays a vital role in the
administration of justice emphasizes the need to secure to him his
honorarium lawfully earned as a means to preserve the decorum and
respectability of the legal profession. A lawyer is as much entitled to
judicial protection against injustice or imposition of fraud on the part of
his client as the client is against abuse on the part of his counsel. The
duty of the court is not alone to ensure that a lawyer acts in a proper
and lawful manner, but also to see that a lawyer is paid his just fees.
2 concept of Attorneys fees:

Ordinary sense- attorney's fees represent the reasonable

compensation paid to a lawyer by his client for the legal services
rendered to the latter.

Extraordinary concept- attorney's fees may be awarded by the court

as indemnity for damages to be paid by the losing party to the
prevailing party, such that, in any of the cases provided by law where
such award can be made the amount is payable not to the lawyer but
to the client, unless they have agreed that the award shall pertain to
the lawyer as additional compensation or as part thereof.