RIGUER v. ATTY. MATEO

EDUARDO N. RIGUER, Petitioner vs. ATTY. EDRALIN S. MATEO, Respondent

G.R. No. 222538

June 21, 2017

FACTS:

Sometime in 2002, petitioner Eduardo N. Riguer (Riguer) engaged the services of respondent Atty. Edralin S. Mateo (Atty. Mateo) to represent him in civil and criminal cases involving a parcel of land covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 12112. They agreed that the compensation for Atty. Mateo's legal services would be the acceptance fee, appearance fee, and pleading fees, which Riguer religious ly paid.

On January 16, 2007, the RTC rendered a judgment favorable to Riguer in the civil case. During the pendency of the appeal, Atty. Mateo was able to make him sign a document entitled "Kasunduan." 7 The said document stated that Riguer agreed to pay Atty. Mateo the following: a)₱30,000.00 as reimbursement for the latter's expenses in the civil case; b) ₱50,000.00 in case of a favorable decision in the civil case; and c) ₱250,000.00 once the land covered by TCT No. 12112 was sold.

On May 21, 2009, the appeal was decided in favor of Riguer, prompting Atty. Mateo to demand payment of the fees agreed upon in the Kasunduan. toRiguer refused pay.

After two (2) years or on May 30, 2011, Atty. Mateo filed a Complaint for Collection of Attorney's Fees with Urgent Prayer for Issuance of Preliminary Attachment before the MTCC.

In its July 26, 2013 decision, the MTCC ruled in favor of Atty. Mateo and ordered Riguer to pay him ₱250,000.00 with six percent (6%) interest as attorney's fees and ₱5,494.50 as costs of suitAggrieved, Riguer appealed to the RTC.In its June 2, 2014 Decision, the RTC concurred with the MTCC.

Undeterred, Riguer appealed before the CA.

In its April 13, 2015 Decision, the CA sustained the RTC decision. The appellate court disagreed that Atty. Mateo merely inserted the Kasunduan in the voluminous documents of the appealed civil case as thedocument was signed a month before the trial court had rendered its decision.

ACCORDINGLY, this petition is DENIED and the Decision dated June 2, 2014, AFFIRMED. Hence, this petition.

ISSUES:

WHETHER RIGUER'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION FOR THE APRIL 13, 2015 CA DECISION WAS TIMELY FILED.

WHETHER ATTY. MATEO IS ENTITLED TO RECOVER ₱250,000.00 IN ATTORNEY'S FEES PURSUANT TO THE KASUNDUAN.

RULING:

The petition is partially meritorious.

Under Section 9, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court, service of judgments, final orders or resolutions may be served either personally or by registered mail. In relation thereto, service by registered mail shall be made by depositing the copy in the post office in a sealed envelope addressed to the party or his counsel at his office, if known, otherwise at his residence, if known.

The CA was correct in reckoning the 15-day period to file a motion for reconsideration from May 15, 2015, when Macaldo received a copy of the decision, and not May 18, 2015, when Riguer's former counsel was allegedly informed by his mother about the decision. Thus, the motion for reconsideration was filed out of time as it was done only on June 2, 2015. As pointed out by the CA, the Philippine Postal Corporation certified that a copy of the April 13, 2015 decision was received by Riguer's counsel through Macaldo.

Fraud must be clearly and convincingly proved before a contract may be nullified

The Court agrees that Riguer failed to establish that he was deceived and misled by Atty. Mateo in signing the Kasunduan. Though Atty. Mateo judicially admitted that he prepared the said document during the pendency of the appeal, 17 it was insufficient to prove that he employed fraud and deceit in making Riguer sign the said document together with other documents for the appeal.

Second, the standard of proof required is clear and convincing evidence. This standard of proof is derived from American common law. It is less than proof beyond reasonable doubt (for criminal cases) but greater than preponderance of evidence (for civil cases). The degree of believability is higher than that of an ordinary civil case. Civil cases only require a preponderance of evidence to meet the required burden of proof.

However, when fraud is alleged in an ordinary civil case involving contractual relations, an entirely different standard of proof needs to be satisfied. The imputation of fraud in a civil case requires the presentation of clear and convincing evidence. Mere allegations will not suffice to sustain the existence of fraud. The burden of evidence rests on the part of the plaintiff or the party alleging fraud. The quantum of evidence is such that fraud must be clearly and convincingly shown.

Other than Riguer's allegation of fraud, no clear and convincing evidence was presented to support a conclusion that Atty. Mateo employed it in preparing, and eventually having Riguer sign, the Kasunduan. Absent sufficient proof of fraud, the contract binds the parties and is the law between them.

Stipulated attorney's fees may be reduced if found to be unconscionable

The Court, nevertheless, reduces the agreed attorney's fees for being unconscionable. Section 24, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court provides:

Sec. 24. Compensation of attorneys; agreement as to fees. - An attorney shall be entitled to have and recover from his client no more than a reasonable compensation for his services, with a view to the importance of the subject-matter of the controversy, the extent of the services rendered, and professional standing of the attorney. No court shall be bound by the opinion of attorneys as expert witnesses as to the proper compensation but may disregard such testimony and base its conclusion on its professional knowledge. A written contract for services shall control the amount to be paid therefor unless found by the court to be unconscionable or unreasonable. [Emphases supplied]

Accordingly, whether there is an agreement or not, the courts can fix a reasonable compensation which lawyers may receive for their professional services. 20 As an officer of the court, the lawyer submits himself to the authority of the court and, as such, the power to determine the reasonableness or unconscionable character of attorney's fees stipulated by the parties is a matter falling within the regulatory prerogative of the courts.

To convince the Court that the ₱250,000.00 attorney's fees was conscionable, Atty. Mateo pointed out that the the deed of sale did not accurately reflect the value of the land sold because its consideration was only for ₱600,000.00. He insisted that the true value of the property was around ₱3 million.

The deed of sale in question was notarized. The act of notarizing made the instrument a public document carrying with it legal ramifications. In Dela Pena v. Avila,24 the Court explained that a notarized document is proof of the contents stated therein and may be set aside only by clear and strong evidence to the contrary.

In the case at bench, other than his bare assertions, Atty. Mateo never presented proof to support his claim that the consideration indicated in the deed of sale was spurious. Absent any proof to the contrary, the contents of the notarized deed of sale should be held valid and true. Further, Riguer out pointed that the property was located in a remote location, which made it less valuable compared to properties located in the center of the city.

Lest it be misunderstood, the Court does not wish to deprive Atty. Mateo of his just compensation for the satisfactory legal service he had rendered to his client. Though his right to his lawyer's fees is recognized, the same must not amount to a deprivation of property of his client. As Riguer's property was sold for only ₱600,000.00, and not ₱3million, the agreed attorney's fees of ₱250,000.00 must be reduced accordingly.

WHEREFORE, the April 13, 2015 Decision and the September 3, 2015 and January 14, 2016 Resolutions of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 136297 are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. The attorney's fees in the amount of ₱250,000.00 awarded to respondent Atty. Edralin S. Mateo is reduced to ₱l00,000.00.

SO ORDERED.