8/10/2019 Fabillo vs. CA - Copy

1/2

FACTS:

Florencio Fabillo contracted the services of lawyer Alfredo M. Murillo to revive a lost case over his

inheritance from his deceased sister Justinia. He sought to acuire the San Salvador and

!ugahanay "ro"erties that his sister left behind against #regorio $. %rioso& the latter's husband.

They entered into a contract where a contingent fee in favor of Atty. Murillo in case the case won was

agreed u"on. The fee was ()* of the value of whatever benefit Florencio may derive from the suit+

such as if the "ro"erties were sold& rented& or mortgaged. ,t was vague& however& regarding the fee

in case Florencio or his heirs decide to occu"y.

!ursuant to said contract& Murillo filed for Florencio Fabillo a civil case against %rioso to recover the

San Salvador "ro"erty. The case was terminated when the court& u"on the "arties- oint motion in the

nature of a com"romise agreement& declared Florencio Fabillo as the lawful owner not only of the

San Salvador "ro"erty but also the !ugahanay "arcel of land.

Conseuently& Murillo "roceeded to im"lement the contract of services between him and Florencio

Fabillo by ta/ing "ossession and e0ercising rights of ownershi" over ()* of said "ro"erties. He

installed a tenant in the !ugahanay "ro"erty.

Sometime in 1233& Florencio Fabillo claimed e0clusive right over the two "ro"erties and refused to

give Murillo his share of their "roduce invo/ing Art. 1(21 of the Civil Code.

,SS45:

6hether or not contingent fees agreed u"on are valid7

849,#:

The contract of services did not violate said "rovision of law. Article 1(21 of the Civil Code&

s"ecifically "aragra"h ; thereof& "rohibits lawyers from acuiring by "urchase even at a "ublic or

udicial auction& "ro"erties and rights which are the obects of litigation in which they may ta/e "art

by virtue of their "rofession. The said "rohibition& however& a""lies only if the sale or assignment of

the "ro"erty ta/es "lace during the "endency of the litigation involving the client-s "ro"erty.

Hence& a contract between a lawyer and his client sti"ulating a contingent fee is not covered by said

"rohibition under Article 1(21 > Code of !rofessional 8es"onsibility& a lawyer may have a lien

over funds and "ro"erty of his client and may a""ly so much thereof as may be necessary to satisfy

his lawful fees and disbursements.

However& considering the matter is vague on the matter of division of the shares if Florenciooccu"ies the "ro"erty? the ambiguity is to be construed against Atty. Murillo being the one who

drafted the contract and being a lawyer more /nowledgeable about the law. The Court thus invo/ing

the time+ honored "rinci"le that a lawyer shall u"hold the dignity of the legal "rofession& ordered only

a contingent fee of !@&))) as reasonable attorney's fees.

8/10/2019 Fabillo vs. CA - Copy

2/2