Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1961 > December 1961 Decisions > G.R. No. L-17883 December 30, 1961 - RODOLFO B. SANTIAGO, ETC. v. AMADO DIMAYUGA, ETC. :




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-17883. December 30, 1961.]

RODOLFO B. SANTIAGO, ETC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. AMADO DIMAYUGA, ETC., Defendant-Appellant.

Grey, Jr. & Buenaventura for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Santos & Associates, for Defendant-Appellant.


SYLLABUS


1. ATTORNEYS AND CLIENTS; ATTORNEYS’ FEES; LEGALITY OF STIPULATIONS IN CONTRACTS AND IN THE FORM OF LIQUIDATED DAMAGES. — A stipulation or agreement regarding the payment of attorney’s fees is neither illegal nor immoral and is enforceable as the law between the parties (Luneta Motor v. Mora Limponco, 73 Phil. 80). Under the new Civil Code, attorney’s fee is an element of recoverable damages, whether it be in writing (Article 11226) or not stipulated at all the certain cases (Article 2208). Attorney’s fee is in the concept of actual damages (Fores v. Miranda, 105 Phil., 266; 57 Off. Gaz., [44] 7938), except that when it is stipulated and therefore in the form of liquidated damages no proof of pecuniary loss is required (Article 2216).

2. ID.; ID.; COURT’S DISCRETION IN REDUCING AMOUNT IF CASE IS PARTIALLY OR FULLY SETTLED OUT OF COURT. — Where a contract does not expressly stipulate that a fixed sum by way of attorney’s fees shall be paid by defendant in case of collection even if the same is subsequently settled by compromise, it is just and fair to reduce the amount of counsel fee, in the court’s exercise of its discretionary power, where the case is partially or fully settled out of court.

3. ACTIONS; PURPOSE AND GOVERNING LAW; HOW DETERMINED. — The purpose of action or suit and the law to govern it are to be determined by the complaint itself, its allegation and the prayer for relief (Benares v. Benares, G. R. No. L-6438, June 30, 1955; Belandres v. Lopez Sugar Central, 97 Phil., 100; 51 Off. Gaz., [6] 2881).


D E C I S I O N


DE LEON, J.:


This is an action for various sums of money upon six causes of action, plus interests, attorney’s fees and costs. The first five causes of action are based upon promissory notes executed on different dates for the payment on installment basis of the balance of the costs of automobiles purchased by defendant from plaintiff, while the sixth cause of action is based on sales invoices covering costs of materials and repairs made by plaintiff on defendant’s motor vehicles on various occasions.

On March 19, 1959, after defendant’s answer was filed, the parties and their respective counsel filed a joint petition which is in the nature of a partial amicable settlement. In that petition, defendant admitted his liability for the principal amounts alleged in the first five causes of action (unpaid installments which, according to the notes, became due and payable upon defendant’s failure to pay any of said installments), aggregating P42,789.23, payment of which is partially assumed by a third person. The other questions were left to the court for decision. The aforesaid partial amicable settlement was approved by the court, and the attached properties of defendant were released from the attachment. On June 15, 1959, the parties and their counsel submitted a stipulation of facts, whereby defendant admitted his liability for the costs of materials and repairs, without interest, alleged in the sixth cause of action, as well as his liability for accrued interests upon the first five causes of action. They submitted to the court’s discretion the determination of the amount of attorney’s fees and costs of suit.

From the parties’ agreements, the court a quo rendered judgment ordering defendant to pay plaintiff the sum of P208.39 as costs of repairs, P886.84 as interests up to and including March 19, 1959, plus an additional amount of 20% on the sum of P42,789.23 as attorney’s fees, and the costs of suit. Regarding the award for attorney’s fees, the court below stated in its decision:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"In the promissory notes executed by the defendant, the latter undertook to pay to the plaintiff a sum equivalent to 33-1/3% by way of attorney’s fees, plus expenses of collection and costs. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, the Court is of the opinion that an amount of 20% is reasonable as attorney’s fees."cralaw virtua1aw library

Not satisfied, defendant appealed to the Court of Appeals, upon the following assignment of errors:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

I. That the trial court erred in not finding that the provision of the promissory notes on the award of attorney’s fees in the event of judicial proceedings to enforce collection is not applicable in this case; and,

II. That the trial court erred in determining as reasonable 20% of the amount involved in the complaint for attorney’s fees.

The Court of Appeals, by resolution, certified the case to this Court for disposition, on the ground that the appeal involves purely questions of law.

The genuineness of the five promissory notes copied in their entirety in the complaint is not controverted. The stipulations as to the payment of attorney’s fees are the same in all the notes, and read:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"In the event of my (our) failure to pay any of the foregoing installments, the whole sum remaining then unpaid will immediately become due and payable, at the option of the holder of this note, and in the event of judicial proceedings to enforce collection, I (we, jointly and severally), further promise to pay to the holder of this note an additional sum equivalent to 33-1/3% of the amount due, for and as attorney’s fees and expenses of collection, in addition to the costs of suit."cralaw virtua1aw library

A stipulation or agreement regarding the payment of attorney’s fees is neither illegal nor immoral and is enforceable as the law between the parties (Luneta Motor v. Mora Limponco, 73 Phil., 80). Under the new Civil Code, attorney’s fee is an element of recoverable damages, whether it be in writing (Articles 11226, supra) or not stipulated at all in certain cases (Article 2208, supra). Attorney’s fee is in the concept of actual damages (Fores v. Miranda, G.R. No. L-12163, March 4, 1959), except that when it is stipulated and therefore in the form of liquidated damages no proof of pecuniary loss is required (Article 2216, supra).

Article 1229 of the new Civil Code provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"ART. 1229. The judge shall equitably reduce the penalty when the principal obligation has been partly or irregularly complied with by the debtor. Even if there has been no performance the penalty may also be reduced by the courts if it is iniquitous or unconscionable."cralaw virtua1aw library

The above legal proviso fully justifies the action of the lower court in reducing the attorney’s fee from an amount equivalent to 33-1/3% to 20% of the principal obligation due and admitted in this case, it appearing that several installment payments had already been made by defendant-appellant on the five promissory notes before the commencement of the action. Furthermore, it is the opinion of this Court that where a contract does not expressly stipulate that a fixed sum by way of attorney’s fees shall be paid by defendant in case of collection even if same is subsequently settled by compromise, it is just and fair to reduce the amount of counsel fee, in the court’s exercise of its discretionary power, where the case is partially or fully settled out of court.

Appellant, however wants to remove this action of plaintiff from the purview of their stipulation above-quoted, by claiming that this case is not a "judicial proceeding to enforce collection" but for the purpose of settling the disagreement as to the manner of application of the payments on the five promissory notes. But it is clear that the complaint is for collection or recovery of various sums of money. As repeatedly stated, the purpose of action or suit and the law to govern it is to be determined by the complaint itself, its allegations and the prayer for relief (Benares v. Benares, G.R. No. L-6438, June 3, 1955; Belandres v. Lopez Sugar Central, G.R. No. L-6869, May 7, 1955). Needless to state, were it not for this suit, accompanied by an attachment on defendant’s automobiles, it is not far-fetched to surmise that defendant may probably, as before, neglect or refuse to pay the installments as they fall due.

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is affirmed, with costs against defendant-appellant.

Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes and Dizon, JJ., concur.

Padilla, J., took no part.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






December-1961 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-15264 December 22, 1961 - GARCIA SAMSON v. RAMON ENRIQUEZ, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-15763 December 22, 1961 - NATIONAL POWER CORP. v. HON. JESUS DE VEYRA, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-16806 December 22, 1961 - SERGIO DEL ROSARIO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-16825 December 22, 1961 - IN RE: CHUA PUN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-16950 December 22, 1961 - SIMEON T. GARCIA v. ARTURO B. PASCUAL

  • G.R. No. L-18054 December 22, 1961 - CITY OF BUTUAN v. HON. JUDGE MONTANO A. ORTIZ, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-19168 December 22, 1961 - ANSBERTO P. PAREDES v. ROSALIND B. ANTILLON

  • G.R. No. L-16173 December 23, 1961 - PASCUALA R. VITO v. HON. ARSENIO H. LACSON, ETC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16992 December 23, 1961 - ATLANTIC GULF & PACIFIC CO. OF MLA., INC. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-8748 December 26, 1961 - ISABEL B. VDA. DE PADILLA v. CONCEPCION PATERNO

  • G.R. No. L-15365 December 26, 1961 - ASUNCION FRANCISCO, ET AL v. HON. HERMOGENES CALUAG, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-18128 December 26, 1961 - J. M. TUASON & CO., INC., ET AL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-16600 December 27, 1961 - ILOILO CHINESE COMMERCIAL SCHOOL v. LEONORA FABRIGAR, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-12996 December 28, 1961 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO ALBERT

  • G.R. No. L-14337 December 28, 1961 - AGAPITO TRIA, ET AL v. PEDRO ZABALLA, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-14823 December 28, 1961 - ANACLETA BARILLO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-15013 December 28, 1961 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. ASTURIAS SUGAR CENTRAL, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-15091 December 28, 1961 - GENOVEVA CATALAN PAULINO, ET AL v. PAZ H. PAULINO, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-15798 December 28, 1961 - JOSE P. TECSON v. SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM

  • G.R. No. L-16359 December 28, 1961 - INSULAR LIFE ASSURANCE CO., LTD. v. SSS

  • G.R. No. L-16563 December 28, 1961 - Z. E. LOTHO, INC. v. ICE & COLD STORAGE INDUSTRIES OF THE PHIL., INC., ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-17066 December 28, 1961 - IN RE: CARMEN PADILLA VDA. DE BENGSON v. PHIL. NAT’L., BANK

  • G.R. No. L-17135 December 28, 1961 - MANILA CORDAGE CO. v. HON. MAGNO GATMAITAN, ETC., ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-17196 December 28, 1961 - TEODORICO B. SANTOS v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17237 December 28, 1961 - GREGORIA BARTOLO v. PRIMO G. MALIWANAG, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-17535 December 28, 1961 - H. G. HENARES & SONS v. NATIONAL LABOR UNION

  • G.R. No. L-17661 December 28, 1961 - MANUEL TIBERIO v. MANILA PILOTS ASSO.

  • G.R. No. L-17687 December 28, 1961 - JANUARIO L. JISON, SR. v. IGNACIO DEBUQUE, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-17690 December 28, 1961 - MANUEL DIVINAGRACIA v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF MLA., ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-17934 December 28, 1961 - ALLIED FREE WORKERS’ UNION v. HON. JUDGE MANUEL ESTIPONA, ETC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17937 December 28, 1961 - COMMUNITY SAWMILL CO. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COM., ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-13254 December 30, 1961 - CALIFORNIA LINES INC. v. AMPARO DE LOS SANTOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-13415 December 30, 1961 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOROTEO BOLLENA, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-14814 December 30, 1961 - EARNSHAWS DOCKS & HONOLULU IRON WORKS v. PEDRO GIMENEZ

  • G.R. No. 1-14999 December 30, 1961 - NARIC WORKERS’ UNION v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-15436 December 30, 1961 - EUSEBIO G. DIMAANO v. AUDITOR GENERAL, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-15759 December 30, 1961 - PAMPANGA BUS COMPANY, INC., ET AL v. MUNICIPALITY OF TARLAC

  • G.R. No. L-15812 December 30, 1961 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO RACCA, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-15901 December 30, 1961 - ALIPIO GONZALES v. Hon. SERGIO OSMEÑA, JR., ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-16106 December 30, 1961 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. PNB, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-16124 December 30, 1961 - ESPERANZA FERNANDEZ v. HON. HERMOGENES CALUAG, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-16381 December 30, 1961 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO FAUSTO Y TOMAS

  • G.R. No. L-16486 December 30, 1961 - SHIU SHUN MAN v. EMILIO L. GALANG

  • G.R. No. L-16746 December 30, 1961 - REXWELL CORP. v. DOMINADOR P. CANLAS

  • G.R. No. L-16988 December 30, 1961 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LUCIO RADA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17061 December 30, 1961 - LUNETA MOTOR COMPANY v. ANGEL DIMAGIBA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17068 December 30, 1961 - NATIONAL SHIPYARDS AND STEEL CORP. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17400 December 30, 1961 - EPIFANIA M. CUENCA v. SUPERINTENDENT OF THE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION FOR WOMEN

  • G.R. No. L-17477 December 30, 1961 - POLO FIANZA, ET AL. v. NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17669 December 30, 1961 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LONGENOS PEÑAFIEL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17883 December 30, 1961 - RODOLFO B. SANTIAGO, ETC. v. AMADO DIMAYUGA, ETC.

  • G.R. No. L-18734 December 30, 1961 - GSIS EMPLOYEES ASSOC., ET AL. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.