Awass, Inc. vs. Joselito L. Santos, et al.

[SEC-SICD * CASE NO. 2612. March 8, 1988.] AWASS, INC. , complainant , vs . JOSELITO L. SANTOS, ET AL. , respondents . D E C I S I O N This treats of the respondents' counterclaims impleaded in their respective answers to the complaint filed against them by AWASS, Inc. Records of the instant case would show that the main case was dismissed by the Commission for failure to prosecute in its Order, dated August 20, 1986, copy of which was duly served on complainant's counsel on 22 August 1986. Neither a motion for reconsideration of said order nor an appeal therefrom has been filed by complainant's counsel. With the exception of respondent Crescent International Contractors, Inc. which had not been represented in any of the scheduled hearings on the respondents' counterclaims despite due notice thereof to its counsel, the individual respondents, thru counsel, were allowed by the Commission to present their respective evidences (testimonial and documentary), ex-parte, without prejudice to the right of complainant's counsel to cross examination. Complainant's counsel, however, never appeared in said hearings despite due notice. And when individual respondents made their formal offer of evidence, complainant's counsel did not bother to comment nor object thereto. In the scheduled hearing of July 7, 1987, the purpose of which was for the complainant to present its evidence re respondents' counterclaims, complainant's counsel, despite due notice thereof, did not appear. Upon motion made by counsel for respondents Nadal and Padua, the Commission, in its Order, dated July 10, 1987, considered such non-appearance for the complainant as a waiver of its right to present its evidence on the aforesaid counterclaims. No motion for reconsideration thereof having been, so far, filed by the complainant's counsel, the Commission now considers the respondents' counterclaims submitted for adjudication. Individual respondents-counter-claimants Nadal, Padua, Santos and Sto. Tomas presented the following evidences in support of their separate counterclaims: (1) Nadal He testified as to damages he suffered to support his claim for damages. With respect to his claim for attorney's fees, he presented, in addition to his testimony thereon, documents showing the amount billed against him and Padua by their lawyer (ACCRA LAW) in connection with the case at bar, and the corresponding payments made, so far, by the former to the latter. (2) Padua In addition to his testimony re damages he suffered, he presented an Electrocardiographer Report and his doctor's prescription. As regards his claim for attorney's fees, Padua's lawyer, who is also the lawyer of Nadal, likewise presented the same document showing the amount billed against him and Nadal by their lawyer in connection with the instant case. (3) Santos He opted to abandon his counterclaim for damages by not presenting any evidence therefor. Anent his claim for attorney's fees, his lawyer, Atty. Liban of Sycip, Salazar, Feliciano & Hernandez Law Office, testified on the documents showing the billings of the said law office against Santos in connection with the instant case and the payments, so far made therefor, by Santos to his counsel's office. (4) Sto. Tomas Likewise, he did not present any evidence for his counterclaim for damages, undertaken in his verbal manifestation in open hearing, he submitted, in support of his claim for attorney's fees, a Certification that he has a monthly salary of P10,000.00 from which were deducted the corresponding amounts equivalent to the number of days that he was absent from his office while attending the hearings of the instant case and prays for the petitioner's payment to him of the said amount deducted from his salary. Insofar as the claims of Nadal and Padua for attorney's fees are concerned, the basis thereof is their common evidence consisting of Bill No. 16511/Jdl dated 5 December 1984 from the Law Offices Angara Concepcion Regala & Cruz (ACCRA LAW) addressed to Chariat International, Inc., attention: Nicanor L. Nadal and Mario C. Padua for P20,000.00 as legal services rendered in connection with the instant case. The additional amount of P1,595.40 being claimed by Nadal has, for its basis, the different receipts issued by ACCRALAW to Nadal for payments made by the latter for expenses incurred in connection with the instant case. On the other hand, the claim of respondent Santos for attorney's fees is likewise based mainly on the evidence consisting of billings contained in different statements of accounts of Sycip, Salazar, Feliciano & Hernandez to Santos totalling P201,071.50 for legal services rendered in connection with the instant case. Santos' evidences of payments appear in different official receipts issued by his counsel's office totalling P78,711.50. Upon consideration of the evidences presented, both oral and documentary, we see no valid reason to hold petitioner liable for damages as part of respondents' counterclaims. We find Nadal's testimony on which his claim for damages is mainly dependent, to be self-serving and no sufficient basis. In the same breath, the Electrocardiographer Report and the doctor's prescription of Padua which were presented to support his testimony failed to justify Padua's claim for damages. As to respondents Santos and Sto. Tomas, suffice it to say that they both waived their claims for damages when they opted not to present any evidence therefor. Anent individual respondents' claims for attorney's fees, we find the claims of respondents Nadal, Padua and Sto. Tomas reasonable enough considering, among others, the time and efforts their counsels devoted to the instant case. As to respondent Santos, we consider his claim for attorney's fees unconscionably exorbitant. All things considered, the foregoing claims rest upon a valid consideration arising upon the same situation involved that which has frequently arisen in any given case. The respondents are bound to pay whatever obligations they have under the contract with their respective counsels. They could not repudiate said contract, the consideration of which they had received, and upon the performance of which their respective counsels had fulfilled their part of the contract. But all these by no means follow that exorbitant claims for attorney's fees are enforceable against the petitioner without regard to justice. Circumstances often exist, as they do exist in the instant case, which require the serious consideration of the reasonableness of the claims where justice plainly demands it. The counterclaims in the case at bar simply assert that the petitioner must respond to respondents' claims for attorney's fees but the reasonableness thereof should always be sustained in the determination of petitioner's liability. WHEREFORE, the claims for damages of respondents Nicanor L. Nadal, Mario C. Padua, Joselito L. Santos and Romeo R. Sto. Tomas are hereby DENIED while their claims for attorney's fees are hereby GRANTED for P10,000.00 each. No pronouncements as to the counterclaims of respondent Crescent International Contractors, Inc. and as to costs of this suit. (SGD.) ERNESTO T. MENDIOLA Hearing Officer