ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[ G.R. No. 136447. March 6, 2000]
LEPANTO CONSOLIDATED MINING CO. et al. vs. TRADERS TRUCKING
SECOND DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated MAR 6 2000.
G.R. No. 136447 (Lepanto Consolidated Mining Company, et al. vs. Traders Trucking, represented by its General Manager, William Go.)
For consideration is a motion filed on November 4, 1999 by both parties praying that judgment be rendered in accordance with the following agreement, dated November 2, 1999:
COMPROMISE AGREEMENT
This Compromise Agreement is made and entered into this 2md day of November 1999 at the City of Makati, by and between:
LEPANTO CONSOLIDATED MINING COMPANY, a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the Republic of the Philippines, with office address at 21/F, BA-Lepanto Bldg., 8747 Paseo De Roxas, Makati City, herein represented by Mr. Artemio F. Disini in his capacity as President, hereinafter referred to as "LEPANTO";
-and-
TRADERS TRUCKING, a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the Republic of the Philippines, with office address at No. 179 Naguilian Road, Baguio City, herein represented by Mr. William Go in his capacity as General Manager, hereinafter referred to as "TRADERS."
W I T N E S S E T H:
1.�������� That Lepanto (along with Felipe U. Yap, Virgilo V. Guevara and Edmundo T. Quinto in their official capacities) and Traders are the petitioners and Private Respondent, respectively, in G.R. No. 136447, entitled "Lepanto Consolidated Mining Company, et al. vs. Court of Appeals and Traders Trucking," which case is pending with the Honorable Supreme Court;
2.�������� That in the spirit of compromise Lepanto has offered and Traders has accepted the former's offer to amicably settle the aforecited case, under the following terms and conditions:
2.1������ Immediately upon the signing of this Compromise Agreement and filing (with the Honorable Supreme Court on G.R. No. 136447) of a Joint Motion to Approve Compromise Agreement, Lepanto, shall, in a single payment, pay Traders the sum of TWENTY FOUR MILLION SIX HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND (24,650,000.00) PESOS, Philippine Currency;
2.2������ The settlement amount of P24,650,000.00 represents the full satisfaction and settlement of any and all claims that Traders Trucking might have arising from Civil Case No. 2439-R, CA G.R. No. 56191 and G.R. No. 136447;
2.3������ That the parties herein have read and understood the contents of this Compromise Agreement, have been fully appraised of the substance and consequences of the execution hereof, and have, with the assistance of their respective counsels, unconditionally agreed thereto.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have herewith signed this Compromise Agreement this 2 nd day of November 1999 at the City of Makati.
LEPANTO CONSOLIDATED�������������������������������� TRADERS TRUCKING
MINING COMPANY
By:����������������������������������������������������������������������������� By:
����������������������� (Sgd.) ARTEMIO F. DISINI���������������������������������� (Sgd.) WILLIAM GO
����������������������� President������������������������������������������� ����������������������� General Manager
Signed in the presence of:
����������� (Sgd.) [Atty. Jose A. Di�o, Jr.��������������������� (Sgd.) [Atty. Abelardo E. Estrada
Counsel of Petitioners]��������������������������������������������� Counsel for Respondent]
The motion is opposed by Atty. Diosdado N. Silva of the Alvarez Silva Clavano Law Offices, co-counsel for respondent William Go, Traders Trucking's General Manager. Atty. Silva alleges that the compromise agreement was entered into by respondent Go to avoid payment of the lawful fees of his associates and himself. It is alleged that respondent Go had agreed to pay them on contingent basis, i.e., "subject to this Honorable Supreme Court's resolution DENYING due course to Lepanto's petition and the issuance of the corresponding entry of judgment in favor of William T. Go." It is claimed that petitioners agreed to settle this case after considering the supplemental comment and rejoinder filed in this Court by Atty. Silva and his associates in behalf of Traders Trucking. Atty. Silva prays that the approval of the compromise agreement be deferred until their fees are settled or, in the alternative, that an order be given directing respondent Go to settle the same within five days from notice.
In his manifestation, dated December 20, 1999, respondent Go alleges that he already paid Atty. Silva and his associates P400,000.00 which, on the principle of quantum meruit, is "adequate compensation" for the two pleadings they had filed.
On the other hand, Atty. Silva claims that respondent Go paid only P200,000.00 in acceptance fees. He contends that the principle of quantum meruit does not apply in this case because he and his associates have a contract with respondent Go.
Petitioners, for their part, in a manifestation and motion, dated January 24, 2000, state that instead of asking for the deferment of the parties' motion for approval of their compromise agreement, Atty. Silva "should file at the proper time, either a notice of charging lien under Rule 138 of the Rules of Court 1 Rule 138, �37 provides:
Attorneys' liens . - An attorney shall have a lien upon the funds, documents and papers of his client which have lawfully come into his possession and may retain the same until his lawful fees and disbursements have been paid, and may apply such funds to the satisfaction thereof. He shall also have a lien to the same extent upon all judgments for the payment of money, and executions issued in pursuance of such judgments, which he has secured in a litigation of his client, from and after the time when he shall have caused a statement of his claim of such lien to be entered upon the records of the court rendering such judgment, or issuing such execution, and shall have caused written notice thereof to be delivered to his client and to the adverse party; and he shall have the same right and power over such judgments and executions as his client would have enforce his lien and secure the payment of his just fees and disbursements. or a separate civil action for collection of attorney's fees."
The Court agrees with petitioners. As held in Jureidini v. Court of Appeals, 2 83 SCRA 90 (1978). lawyers' right to fees from their clients may not be invoked by them as a ground for disapproving or otherwise holding in abeyance the approval of the parties' compromise agreement which is otherwise not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order, or public policy. The rights of lawyers to the fees due them for services in a litigation cannot have a higher standing than the rights of the clients or the parties involved. The lawyers affected can enforce their rights in a proper proceeding in accordance with the Rules, but said rights may not be used to prevent the approval of the compromise. 3 Jesalva v. Hon. Bautista and Premiere Productions, In., 105 Phil. 348 (1959).
WHEREFORE, finding the foregoing compromise agreement not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order, or public policy, the Court hereby APPROVES the same; and, as prayed or, RENDERS JUDGMENT in accordance with the terms thereof, without any special pronouncement as to costs.
Petitioners' motion to deny admission of respondent's supplemental comment and rejoinder is NOTED WITHOUT ACTION.
This case is hereby CLOSED and TERMINATED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) TOMASITA M. DRIS
Clerk of Court
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
