ANDRES JAYME, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. BUALAN ET AL., DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS.

This case furnishes eloquent proof of how clients, in this instance
ignorant Bagobos, can be passed on from lawyer to lawyer in a seemingly
endless treadmill of litigation without ever reaching finality and a
vindication of legal rights. The particular judgment appealed from by
the Bagobos purported to award their former attorney P15,000 for
professional services.

In 1921, Bagobo Bualan and companions
secured Attorneys Juan A. Sarenas and Domingo Braganza to represent
them in a case against one Ciriaco Lizada for the possession of land.
The action was successfully maintained in the Court of First Instance
and in the Supreme Court.^[1]
Nevertheless the attorneys appear to have taken over control of the
land presumably to protect their attorney’s fees. In view of this
situation Bagobo Bualan and others engaged the services of Attorney
Andres Jayme to institute another action to recover possession of their
land and confirmed this in writing. Issues were joined, but an amicable
settlement was entered into by Attorney Jayme and Attorneys Sarenas and
Braganza, whereby the Bagobos were to be given the land, they to pay to
Attorneys Sarenas and Braganza the sum of P6,000, and this agreement
was judicially confirmed. In this connection it should be stated that
the amount of P6,000 was apparently received from Japanese tenants to
cancel the indebtedness of Attorneys Sarenas and Braganza, but for
reasons known to the attorney for the Bagobos, the major part of this
money went into his pocket instead, thus necessitating the execution of
a mortgage in order to cancel this claim. As a matter of fact, Attorney
Jayme received P1,270 as proved by the receipt Exhibit 3 and P5,750 as
proved by the receipt Exhibit 4, or a total of P7,020. About the same
time, Bagobo Bualan signed by a mark a promissory note in the amount of
P15,000 in favor of Attorney Jayme. As related to the foregoing facts,
it is the contention of the appellants that the services of the
attorney are only worth P1,270 which he had received, and that he
should be ordered to return to them the sum of P5,750 which he secured
as a loan and not in payment of his fees.

The relationship
of attorney and client is here evidenced by a written contract for
services which, in accordance with section 29 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, should ordinarily control the amount of the recovery by the
lawyer if found by the courts not to be unconscionable or unreasonable.
With an attorney as one party to a contract stipulating the amount of
the compensation he is to receive, and a client of ordinary
intelligence and business acumen as the other party agreeing to this
amount, the courts should give effect to the contract and if the
attorney has performed the task assigned to him, should determine his
compensation on the basis of the contract. But the situation is not the
same when on one side there is an attorney with professional knowledge
of his rights and of the technicalities of the law and on the other
side an ignorant non-Christian of whose rights the law takes tender
care. In this instance, to do justice to Attorney Jayme, it should be
explained that he does not rely entirely on the contract between him
and the Bagobos, but is considerate enough to ask for the valuation of
his services on the basis of quantum meruit.

The
elements to be considered in fixing a reasonable compensation for the
services rendered by a lawyer are generally: (1) The importance of the
subject matter of the controversy, (2) the extent of the services
rendered, and (3) the professional standing of the lawyer. (Code of
Civil Procedure, sec. 29; Code of Legal Ethics, Canon No. 12; Delgado vs.
De la Rama [1922], 43 Phil., 419.) Speaking to these elements, there is
evident a wide difference of opinion as to the value of the property
involved in the case which Attorney Jayme handled, the attorney
claiming that it is worth P200,000 and this being the finding of the
trial judge, and the appellants claiming that the land is worth
something like P30,000. All facts considered, probably a happy medium,
or approximately P100,000, would be a fair approximation of the total
value of the land and its improvements. As to the services rendered by
Attorney Jayme, they consisted in drafting and filing a complaint and
bringing the suit to an amicable conclusion and in drafting and
acknowledging a mortgage, although this latter document may have been
unnecessary. Finally, except that it was alleged in the complaint and
not denied that Attorney Jayme has exercised the duties of his
profession since 1908, and is an attorney with sufficient business to
be known to the courts, we have no other data like expert testimony to
go on. All elements considered, and it being admitted that the attorney
has already received P7,020, although the proper application of P5,750
is challenged by appellants, we think that Attorney Jayme has been
sufficiently compensated by the receipt of these P7,020, and that the
Bagobos should not be made to pay anything more. Before concluding, may
we be permitted to express the hope that present counsel for the
Bagobos, Messrs. Reta and Quimpo, will not follow in the devious path
of their predecessors, necessitating further litigation to settle their
fees, and that as counselled in the Code of Legal Ethics, “in fixing
fees it should never be forgotten that the profession is a branch of
the administration of justice and not a mere money-making trade.”

In consonance with the foregoing pronouncements, the judgment of the
trial court will be reversed, and the plaintiff will take nothing on
his complaint and the defendants will take nothing on their
counterclaim, neither party to recover costs from the other. So ordered.

Villa-Real, Abad Santos, Hull, and Imperial, JJ., concur.

---

^[1] G. R. No. 19072. Amad vs. Lizada, promulgated December 22, 1922, not reported.