G.R. No. 117422 - NEOMENIA PETILLA PIMENTEL, VS. COURT OF APPEALS AND ZOSIMO B. NAMIT. D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered awarding an additional amount of US$2,500.00 in favor of plaintiff as his attorney's fees in the labor case plus P10,000.00 attorney's fees for his counsel, for this case, without pronouncement as to costs. The counterclaim of the defendant is dismissed for lack of legal and factual basis." [1] An appeal was interposed before the respondent Court of Appeals which affirmed the decision appealed from. [2] Motion for reconsideration of the decision having been denied, [3] the instant petition was filed submitting that the Court a quo committed reversible errors of law and acted with grave abuse of discretion: IN HOLDING HEREIN PETITIONER LIABLE FOR ADDITIONAL ATTORNEY'S FEES IN THE HUGE AND UNREASONABLE AMOUNT OF US$2,500 ON THE BASIS OF UNSUBSTANTIATED CONCLUSIONS IN UTTER DISREGARD OF THE GUIDING PRINCIPLES ENUNCIATED BY THE HONORABLE SUPREME COURT IN DETERMINING THE REASONABLENESS OF ATTORNEY'S FEES. IN AFFIRMING THE AWARD OF P10,000 TO PRIVATE RESPONDENT AS ATTORNEY'S FEES FOR "HIS COUNSEL", DESPITE THE ABSENCE OF EXPRESS FINDINGS OF FACT AND LAW IN THE TEXT OF THE DECISION OF THE TRIAL COURT, AND THE FACT THAT SAID AWARD IS STATED ONLY IN THE DISPOSITIVE PORTION OF THE TRIAL COURT'S DECISION. IN REJECTING PETITIONER'S COUNTERCLAIMS, WITHOUT PASSING UPON THE MERITS OF THE BASIS THEREOF, NAMELY, AMONG OTHERS, THE PROVEN UNETHICAL AND UNPROFESSIONAL CONDUCT OF THE PRIVATE RESPONDENT (AS LAWYER) TOWARD HIS CLIENT, THE HEREIN PETITIONER. We find no merit in the first assigned error. Petitioner contends that absent any agreement on attorney's fees, the determination of the compensation for the lawyer's services will have to be based on quantum meruit , such as but not limited to the extent and character of the services rendered, the labor, time and trouble involved, the skill and experience called for in performing the services, the professional and social standing of the lawyer, and the results secured (citing cases). Petitioner further contends that private respondent failed to demonstrate the circumstances showing the extent of services rendered and that there were no specific findings of fact in the court's decision that would justify the award of an additional US$2,500.00 as attorney fees to private respondent. The issue of the reasonableness of attorneys fees based on quantum meruit is a question of fact, and well-settled is the rule that conclusions and findings of fact by the lower courts are entitled to great weight on appeal and will not be disturbed except for strong and cogent reasons. The findings of the Court of Appeals by itself, which are supported by substantial evidence are almost beyond the power of review by the Supreme Court. [4] We find no cogent reason to disturb the factual findings of the respondent court as follows: "If it were really true as appellant alleged, that it was not difficult to reopen the "closed file" of her claim as the same did not involve a legal mat