Atty. Andres Jayme vs Bualan

G.R. No. 37386 – 58 Phil. 422 – Legal Ethics – Attorney’s Fees – Legal Profession is not a mere money-making trade

In 1921, Bualan, a member of the Bagobo tribe, contracted the services of attorneys Juan Sarenas and Domingo Braganza in a case involving a parcel of land. The two lawyers successfully handled the case but then they retained said land allegedly to protect their attorney’s fees. And so Bualan had to contract the services of another lawyer, Atty. Andres Jayme to reclaim the land from Sarenas and Domingo. Eventually, a compromise agreement was reached and Sarenas and Domingo returned the land to Bualan. For his services, Atty. Jayme was paid P1,. But incidentally, Jayme also received P6, from the tenants of said land but out of that amount he kept P5, for attorney’s fee and gave the rest to Bualan.

Bualan now wants get the rest of the P6k from Jayme and so he hired the services of Attorneys Reta and Quimpo. Bualan claims that the land’s value is at P30, (though the trial court already ruled that it is worth P200k) and that Jayme’s services is only worth P1,.

ISSUE: Whether or not it is just for Atty. Jayme to receive a total of P7, as attorney’s fee.

HELD: Yes. 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.

As applied in this case, the importance of the subject matter which is the parcel of land, though there is conflict as to its valuation, the Supreme Court deemed it fair to peg its value at P100k. As to legal services, Atty. Jayme drafted and filed a complaint and ultimately come up with the compromise agreement. As to Jayme’s professional standing, he’s been practicing law since 1908 (so about 12 years at that time) – but no other testimonies as to his competence. With all these considered, his receipt of P7, is sufficient to cover his fees.

The Supreme Court however took notice of the fact that this litigation just to settle an attorney’s fees should not have been necessary. It made a reminder that “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.”

Read full text