G.R. No. 76276 - ASIAN TRADING CORPORATION, MIGUEL L. ROMERO AND EDCEL C. LAGMAN, VS. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHT DIVISION AND PHILIPPINE BANKING CORPORATION. D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

accordingly settled the attorneys (sic) fees of the undersigned counsels. xxx x x x x x x x x x 15. Quantified, the undersigned counsels are entitled under the Compromise Agreement to 25% of P8,000,000, which should be P2,000,000. However, if the Compromise Agreement were expunged and the case were decided on the merits, readily the value of the litigation by the time of final rendition of judgement will be around P20,000,000. Twenty five (25%) percent thereof will be P5,000,000 for the undersigned counsels attorney's fees. At this point, however it will be safe to assume that only twenty (20%) percent of the legal process remains to be done, and that eighty (80%) percent of the legal efforts leading to the final conclusion of the case has been accomplished by the undersigned counsels. x x x x x x x x x x x x `The attorney should be allowed to recover his attorney's fee in the same action on consideration of equity, to avoid multiplicity of suits and for the better protection of lawyers, who, trusting in the good faith of their clients, render professional services on contingent basis. This should also do away with the questionable practices of clients of compromising their cases at the back of their counsel with the consequence that the stipulated contingent fees of the lawyer are either unreasonably reduced or even completely rendered without basis as in a case wherein the clients waived after the latter had acknowledged, in effect, the correctness of said clients connection.' In either of the foregoing, to put a notice of attorney's lien in favor of the undersigned counsels' claim for attorneys (sic) fees upon any judgment which may be rendered herein, pursuant to Sec. 37, Rule 138, Rules of Court, in relation to Section 26, Rule 138 thereof. [9] x x x x x x x x x" On February 24, 1993, this Court resolve to REINSTATE the Petition, observing that: "x x x x x x x x x xxx despite several manifestations of petitioners to defer resolution of the instant petition due to on-going negotiations to settle the dispute by compromise agreement, the parties have seemingly failed to agree on terms acceptable to all concerned. The three-cornered fight among Asian Trading Corporation, Philippine Banking Corporation and Attys. Salvador and Garingo (former lawyers of Philbanking) over their claim for attorney's fees is better left for adjudication in the main petition." [10] The petition is devoid of merit. In dismissing petitioners's petition for certiorari , the respondent court relied on Section 1, Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court prescribing the requirements for a petition for certiorari , to wit: "xxx (1) the writ is directed against a tribunal board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions; (2) such tribunal, board or officer has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction; and (3) there is no appeal or any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary