Rodriguez v. Chato and Vinzons-Chato Law Offices

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 236277. March 5, 2018.]

MARIA LUISA GOPENGCO RODRIGUEZ, *petitioner,vs. CHATO AND VINZONS-CHATO LAW OFFICES, respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated05 March 2018which reads as follows: ATICcS

"G.R. No. 236277 (Maria Luisa Gopengco Rodriguez*v. Chato and Vinzons-Chato Law Offices)

After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition and AFFIRM the June 23, 2017 Decision 1 and December 21, 2017 Resolution 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 106118 for failure of petitioner Maria Luisa Gopengco Rodriguez (petitioner) to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in upholding the award of P760,000.00 in favor of respondent Chato and Vinzons-Chato Law Offices (respondent) as reasonable compensation for the legal services rendered.

As correctly ruled by the CA, considering that: (a) there was no dispute that Atty. Wilfredo Chato of the respondent law firm rendered legal services for petitioner in the settlement of the dispute with Megaworld Corporation (Megaworld); (b) there was no clear indication that the dispute was resolved through respondent counsel's effort and skill alone, or that the latter actively participated in the drafting of the settlement agreement between petitioner and Megaworld; and (c) the issues involved were not novel and did not require extensive research, the amount of P760,000.00 was properly deemed to be fair and reasonable compensation in accordance with Section 24, 3 Rule 138 of the Rules of Court and Rule 20.01, 4 Canon 20 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

SO ORDERED."

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court

By:

TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

* Also referred to as "Ma. Luisa Gopengco Rodriguez" in some parts of the records. See rollo, pp. 58, 359, and 397.

1. Rollo, pp. 58-73. Penned by Associate Justice Sesinando E. Villon with Associate Justices Rodil V. Zalameda and Ma. Luisa Quijano-Padilla concurring.

2. Id. at 75-76.

3. Section 24, Rule 138 of the Rules 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 the 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 own 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.

4. Pertinent provisions of Rule 20.01, Canon 20 of the Code of Professional Responsibility reads:

   Rule 20.01. A lawyer shall be guided by the following factors in determining his fees:

xxx xxx xxx

   (b) The novelty and difficulty of the questions involved;