ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. No. 137680.� July 5, 2004]
CONCEPT PLACEMENT vs. FUNK
THIRD DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUL 5 2004 .
G.R. No. 137680 (Concept Placement Resources, Inc. vs. Richard V. Funk.)
On February 6, 2004, we rendered a Decision in this case, the pertinent portions of which read:
"Significantly, in German Marine Agencies, Inc. vs. NLRC (G.R. No. 142049, January 30, 2001, 350 SCRA 629), we held that there must always be a factual basis for the award of attorney's fee. Here, since petitioner agreed to be represented by respondent as counsel in the labor case and to pay him his attorney's fee, it must abide with its agreement which has the force of law between them (Article 1308, Civil Code; Jespajo Realty Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 113626, September 27, 2002, 390 SCRA 27).
"We observe, however, that respondent did not encounter
difficulty in representing petitioner. The complaint against it was dismissed
with prejudice. All that respondent did was to prepare the answer with
counterclaim and possibly petitioner's position paper. Considering respondent's
limited legal services and the case involved is not complicated, the award of P50.000.00
as attorney's fee is a bit excessive. In First Metro Investment Corporation
vs. Este del
Sol Mountain Reserve, Inc. (G.R. No. 141811, November 15, 2001, 369 SCRA 99), we ruled that courts are empowered to reduce the amount
of attorney's fee if the same is iniquitous or unconscionable. Under the circumstances
obtaining in this case, we consider the amount of
P
20,000.00
reasonable.
"WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The assailed Decision of
the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in the sense that the award
of P50,000.00 as attorney's fee to herein respondent is reduced to only
P
10,000.00.
No costs.
"SO ORDERED." [1] cralaw
Subsequently, respondent filed a motion dated May 21, 2004 [2] cralaw seeking a clarification on what should be the correct amount of the attorney's fee awarded to him.
Obviously, the P10,000.00 attorney's fee stated in the
dispositive portion of our Decision is merely a clerical error. As stated in
the body of our Decision, the attorney's fee awarded to him should be in the
amount of
P
20,000.00.
ACCORDINGLY, the dispositive portion of our Decision is hereby amended to read as follows:
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The assailed Decision of
the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in the sense that the award
of P50,000.00 as attorney's fee to herein respondent is reduced to only P20,000.00.
No costs.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) JULIETA Y. CARREON
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Rollo at 78-79.
[2] cralaw Id. at 106.
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
