7/25/2019 Dalupan vs. Gacott a.C. No. 5067 Jun 29 2015 Acceptance Fees

1/5

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT

Manila

THIRD DIVISION

A.C. No. 5067 June 29, 2015

CORAZON M. DALUPAN,Complainant,

vs.

ATTY. GLENN C. GACOTT1,Responent.

D ! C I S I O N

!LLARAMA, JR., J.:

"efo#e us is a petition fo# #evie$ une# Rule %&'(", Section %) *c+ of the Rules of Cou#t assailin

Resolution No. -VII()/)ate Ma#ch %/, )/ an Resolution No. -I-()%011&ate Octobe#2, )% of the "oa# of 3ove#no#s of the Inte#ate "a# of the Philippines *I"P+ $hich aopte an

app#ove the Repo#t an Recommenation1ate Decembe# %), )4 of the Investiatin

Commissione# of the Commission on "a# Discipline of the I"P. 5lthouh the I"P "oa# of 3ove#no#s

ismisse the complaint fo# isba#ment file aainst the #esponent, it o#e#e the latte# to #etu#n the

pa6ment of the atto#ne67s fee to the complainant in the amount of P0,. This o#e# to #etu#n the

atto#ne67s fee is sub8ect of the p#esent petition.

The salient facts of the case follo$9

In he# affiavit(complaint0ate 5p#il ), %''', the complainant claime that she $as a efenant in

a c#iminal case fo# #ave slane# penin befo#e the Municipal T#ial Cou#t *MTC+ of Pue#to P#incesa

Cit6, Pala$an. Mean$hile, he# son, :ilme# Dalupan, $as also a efenant in a sepa#ate c#iminalcase fo# #ave slane# an malicious mischief penin befo#e the same cou#t. In o#e# to #ep#esent

the complainant an he# son, the complainant enae the leal se#vices of the #esponent $ho

then cha#e an acceptance fee of P%,.

On 5uust ), %''4, the complainant pai the #esponent P0, as initial pa6ment fo# his

acceptance fee.

On 5uust )/, %''4, the complainant #e;ueste the #esponent to #aft a Motion to Reuce "ail

"on. Ho$eve#, the #esponent alleel6 enie the #e;uest an claime that it $as be6on the

scope of his #etaine# se#vices. Thus, the complainant allee that she cause a ce#tain Roll6

Calbento to #aft the same $hich $as ho$eve# sine b6 the #esponent.

On

7/25/2019 Dalupan vs. Gacott a.C. No. 5067 Jun 29 2015 Acceptance Fees

2/5

The#eafte#, the complainant allee that the #esponent nelecte his uties as counsel an faile to

atten an6 of the hea#ins befo#e the MTC. In vie$ of the #esponent7s #epeate absences befo#e

the MTC,

7/25/2019 Dalupan vs. Gacott a.C. No. 5067 Jun 29 2015 Acceptance Fees

3/5

appea#in that sai intention to $ith#a$ is not onl6 $ith the full confo#mit6 of all the accuse but at

thei# o$n initiative, 5tt6. 3lenn 3acott is he#eb6 #elieve of an6 #esponsibilit6 in the fu#the#

p#osecution of the above(captione cases.2

In vie$ of the above O#e#, the #esponent a#ue that he $as not uilt6 of abanonment o# nelect

of ut6 because it $as the complainant $ho $illfull6 te#minate his se#vices even $ithout fault o#

nelience on his pa#t.

:e #efe##e this case to the I"P fo# its investiation, #epo#t, an #ecommenation.

On Decembe# %), )4, Investiatin Commissione# :ilf#eo !.

7/25/2019 Dalupan vs. Gacott a.C. No. 5067 Jun 29 2015 Acceptance Fees

4/5

oppo#tunit6 cost incu##e b6 the la$6e# fo# not #ep#esentin othe# potential clients ue to a conflict of

inte#est $ith the p#esent client. Thus, the pa6ment of acceptance fee to the la$6e# oes not epen

on the latte#7s pe#fo#mance of leal se#vices.

Since the complainant faile to file an6 comment on the petition fo# #evie$, $e p#ocee to #esolve

the sole issue #aise, an #ule in favo# of the #esponent.

:e fin that the #esponent i not commit an6 fault o# nelience in the pe#fo#mance of his

obliations une# the #etaine# a#eement $hich $as $ilfull6 te#minate b6 the complainant on the

#oun of loss of t#ust an confience. 5s hel b6 the Investiatin Commissione#, the evience on

#eco# sho$s that the #esponent is not liable fo# abanonment o# nelect of ut6.

Ho$eve#, $e isa#ee $ith the conclusion of the Investiatin Commissione# that the #esponent

shoul #etu#n the pa6ment of the atto#ne67s fee to the complainant in the amount of P0,.

?i#stl6, the Investiatin Commissione# se#iousl6 e##e in #efe##in to the amount to be #etu#ne b6

the #esponent as atto#ne67s fee. Relevantl6, $e a#ee $ith the #esponent that the#e is a istinction

bet$een atto#ne67s fee an acceptance fee.

It is $ell(settle that atto#ne67s fee is une#stoo both in its o#ina#6 an eBt#ao#ina#6 concept.%%In

its o#ina#6 sense, atto#ne67s fee #efe#s to the #easonable compensation pai to a la$6e# b6 his client

fo# leal se#vices #ene#e. Mean$hile, in its eBt#ao#ina#6 concept, atto#ne67s fee is a$a#e b6 the

cou#t to the successful litiant to be pai b6 the losin pa#t6 as inemnit6 fo# amaes.%)In the

p#esent case, the Investiatin Commissione# #efe##e to the atto#ne67s fee in its o#ina#6 concept.

On the othe# han, acceptance fee refers to the charge imposed by the lawyer for merely

accepting the case.This is because once the lawyer agrees to represent a client, he is

precluded from handling cases of the opposing party based on the prohibition on conflict of

interest. Thus, the [lawyer] incurs an opportunity cost by merely accepting the case of the

client which is therefore indemnified by the payment of acceptance fee. Since the acceptancefee only seeks to compensate the lawyer for the lost opportunity, it is not measured by the

nature and extent of the legal serices rendered.

In the p#esent case, base on a simple #eain of the Official Receipt ate 5uust ), %''4, the

pa#ties clea#l6 intene the pa6ment of P0, to se#ve as acceptance fee of the #esponent, an

not atto#ne67s fee. Mo#eove#, both pa#ties eBp#essl6 claime that the6 intene such pa6ment as the

acceptance fee of the #esponent. 5bsent an6 othe# evience sho$in a cont#a#6 intention of the

pa#ties, $e fin that the Investiatin Commissione# #avel6 e##e in #efe##in to the amount to be

#etu#ne b6 the #esponent as atto#ne67s fee.

Since the Investiatin Commissione# mae an e##oneous #efe#ence to atto#ne67s fee, he the#efo#e

mista=enl6 conclue that the #esponent shoul #etu#n the same as he i not pe#fo#m an6

substantial leal $o#= on behalf of the complainant. 5s p#eviousl6 mentione, the payment of

acceptance fee does not depend on the nature and extent of the legal serices rendered.

Seconl6, the #esponent i not commit an6 fault o# nelience $hich $oul entail the #etu#n of the

acceptance fee.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jun2015/ac_5067_2015.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jun2015/ac_5067_2015.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jun2015/ac_5067_2015.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jun2015/ac_5067_2015.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jun2015/ac_5067_2015.html#fnt12

7/25/2019 Dalupan vs. Gacott a.C. No. 5067 Jun 29 2015 Acceptance Fees

5/5

Once a la$6e# #eceives the acceptance fee fo# his leal se#vices, he is eBpecte to se#ve his client

$ith competence, an to atten to his client7s cause $ith ilience, ca#e an evotion. %&In Ca#ino v.

5tt6. De os Re6es,%1the #esponent la$6e# $ho faile to file a complaint(affiavit befo#e the

p#osecuto#7s office, #etu#ne theP%, acceptance fee pai to him. Mo#eove#, he $as amonishe

b6 the Cou#t to be mo#e ca#eful in the pe#fo#mance of his ut6 to his clients. Mean$hile, in Volunta(

Rami#e> v. "austista,%0$e o#e#e the #esponent la$6e# to #etu#n the P%1, acceptance fee

because he i nothin to avance his client7s cause u#in the siB(month pe#io that he $asenae as counsel.

In the p#esent case, the complainant allee that she #e;ueste the #esponent to #aft a Motion to

Reuce "ail "on $hich $as enie b6 the latte#.1wphi1She also claime that the #esponent faile to

atten an6 of the hea#in befo#e the MTC. Thus, the complainant file the p#esent complaint fo#

isba#ment on the #oun of abanonment o# nelect of ut6. On the othe# han, the #esponent

enie the alleation that he faile to #aft the Motion to Reuce "ail "on an submitte a cop6 of

the MTC O#e#%4ate 5uust )2, %''4 #antin the motion to #euce bail. He also 8ustifie his

failu#e to atten the hea#ins befo#e the MTC to the failu#e of the p#ocess se#ve# to p#ovie him $ith

a Notice of Hea#in.

Othe# than he# ba#e alleations, the complainant faile to p#esent an6 evience to suppo#t he# claim

that the #esponent committe abanonment o# nelect of ut6. Thus, $e a#e const#aine to affi#m

the factual finins of the Investiatin Commissione# that the p#esumption of #eula#it6 shoul

p#evail in favo# of the #esponent. 5bsent an6 fault o# nelience on the pa#t of the #esponent, $e

see no leal basis fo# the o#e# of the Investiatin Commissione# to #etu#n the atto#ne67s fee

*acceptance fee+ of P0,.

:H!R!?OR!, p#emises consie#e, the petition is he#eb6 3R5NT!D. Resolution No. -VII()/(

%%0 an Resolution No. -I-()%(011 of the I"P "oa# of 3ove#no#s insofa# as the6 o#e#e the

#esponent to #etu#n the atto#ne67s fee *acceptance fee+ to the complainant in the amount of ?ive

Thousan Pesos *P0,+ a#e R!V!RS!D an S!T 5SID!.

SO ORD!R!D.

MART!N S. !LLARAMA, JR.

5ssociate