SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

G.R. No. L-43053        December 9, 1955
IN RE: VICENTE AREVALO. FERNANDO ARCE vs. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK -->

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-43053        December 9, 1955

In re Guardianship of the incapacitated Vicente Arevalo FERNANDO ARCE, claimant-appellant, vs. THE PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, guardian-appellee.

Fernando Arce in his own behalf.
Camus and Delgado for appellee.

MALCOLM, J.:

The question to be decided in this case to do with the determination of the reasonable compensation which Attorney Fernando Arce receive for services rendered in connection with the guardianship of the incapacitated Vicente Arevalo. The guardian of the person of the incapacitated offered to pay the sum of P200 and on the matter coming on for hearing before the Court of First Instance of Manila it was raised to P400. Appearing from this order, the attorney asks that he be allowed the sum of P5,000.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Something is made of the manner in which the services of Attorney Arce contracted, but this is beside the point, for it is evident that the relation of attorney and client existed. The record further shows that in pursuance of such employment, Attorney Arce prepared a petition praying for the appointment of a guardian of the person of the incapacitated and a successful conclusion after a hearing in court, conducted certain negotiations with the banks, made the necessary investigation, and attended to other incidental matters. The inventory of the properties belonging to the incapacitated Vicente Arevalo showed him to be worth approximately half a million pesos. Predicated on these facts, our opinion is that the trial court was overly strict in arriving an amount which would adequately compensate Attorney Arce for his legal work.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

The law is a profession, not a business. Lawyers are officers of the court. That is true. At the same time professional men are entitled to have and recover from their clients a reasonable compensation for their services rendered with a view to the importance of the subject matter of the controversy, to the extent of the services rendered, and the professional standing of the lawyer. Pursuant to the power entrusted to the courts to base conclusions on their professional knowledge relative to the fees which should be rewarded lawyers, courts have constantly to protect clients from unconscionable or unreasonable claims. On the other hand, the standing of the members of the bar is not enhanced by quibbling relative to just fees, equivalent to the bargaining had between a prospective purchaser and a merchant in the markets before a sale is made.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Taking into consideration the established facts and the factors which determine a reasonable compensation for a lawyers, we believe that Attorney Arce is entitled to P1,000 for his services.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Sustaining the appeal to the above extent, the order in question will be modified and Attorney Fernando Arce allowed the sum of P1,000 to be paid by the Philippine National Bank as the guardian of the property of the incapacitated out of the property of the latter. So ordered, with the costs of this instance assessed against the appellee.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Villa-Real, Imperial, Butte, and Goddard, JJ., concur.