AND IN A.M. NO.

10-7-17-SC HAVE NO RELATION TO

THE RESTORING INTEGRITY STATEMENT AND THE
EN BANC SHOW CAUSE RESOLUTION, AND THEREFORE (2) THE
RESPONDENTS ARE NOT ENTITLED TO ACCESS AND
ADDRESS THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED IN A.M. NO. 10-
[A.M. No. 10-10-4-SC. June 7, 2011.]
7-17-SC, TO PRESENT THEIR OWN EVIDENCE IN
RESPECT OF THE PLAGIARISM AND
RE: Letter of the UP Law Faculty entitled Restoring MISREPRESENTATION ISSUES, AND TO SUPPORT
Integrity: A Statement by the Faculty of the University THEIR RESPONSE TO THE SHOW CAUSE
of the Philippines College of Law on the Allegations of RESOLUTION WITH SUCH EVIDENCE.
Plagiarism and Misrepresentation in the Supreme Court
C. WITH DUE RESPECT, THE HONORABLE COURT
ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE RESPONDENTS ARE IN
BREACH OF THEIR ETHICAL OBLIGATIONS FOR
RESOLUTION HAVING ISSUED THE RESTORING INTEGRITY
STATEMENT. 3
In their Motion for Reconsideration, respondents pray that (a) the
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J p: Court's Decision dated March 8, 2011 be reconsidered and set aside and the
respondents' Compliance dated November 18, 2010 be deemed satisfactory,
and (b) the Court expunge the reference in A.M. No. 10-7-17-SC to the
For disposition of the Court are the following:
respondents (i.e., "joined by some faculty members of the University of the
(a) the Motion for Reconsideration 1 dated April 1, 2011 Philippines school of law") effectively finding them guilty of making false
filed by respondent University of the Philippines charges against Associate Justice Mariano C. del Castillo (Justice Del
(UP) law professors Tristan A. Catindig and Carina Castillo). In the alternative, they pray that they be afforded their full rights to
C. Laforteza; and due process and provided the full opportunity to present evidence on the
matters subject of the Show Cause Resolution dated October 19,
(b) the Manifestation 2 dated April 1, 2011 filed by 2010. 4 IHAcCS
respondents Dean Marvic M.V.F. Leonen and Prof.
Theodore O. Te. Anent the first ground, Professors Catindig and Laforteza insist that,
notwithstanding the docketing of this matter as an administrative case, there
In support of their Motion for Reconsideration, Professors Catindig was purportedly a finding that respondents were guilty of indirect contempt in
and Laforteza relied on the following grounds: view of (1) the mention made in the Show Cause Resolution dated October
GROUNDS 19, 2010 ofIn re Kelly, 5 a case involving a contempt charge; and (2) the
references to respondents' "contumacious language" or "contumacious
A. THIS PROCEEDING, WHILE OSTENSIBLY speech and conduct" and to several authorities which dealt with contempt
DOCKETED AS AN ADMINISTRATIVE MATTER, IS proceedings in the Decision dated March 8, 2011.
PREMISED ON A FINDING OF INDIRECT CONTEMPT.
ACCORDINGLY, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, THE The shallowness of such argument is all too easily revealed. It is true
HONORABLE COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE that contumacious speech and conduct directed against the courts done by
RESPONDENTS BREACHED THEIR ETHICAL any person, whether or not a member of the Bar, may be considered as indirect
OBLIGATIONS WITHOUT OBSERVANCE OF THE DUE contempt under Rule 71, Section 3 of the Rules of Court, to wit:
PROCESS SAFEGUARDS GUARANTEED IN AN Sec. 3. Indirect contempt to be punished after
INDIRECT CONTEMPT PROCEEDING. charge and hearing. — After a charge in writing has been
B. WITH DUE RESPECT, THE HONORABLE COURT filed, and an opportunity given to the respondent to
ERRED IN RULING THAT (1) THE PLAGIARISM AND comment thereon within such period as may be fixed by the
MISREPRESENTATION ISSUES IN THE VINUYA CASE court and to be heard by himself or counsel, a person guilty
 of any of the following acts may be punished for indirect the dignity and authority of this Court, to which he owes
contempt: fidelity according to the oath he has taken as such attorney,
and not to promote distrust in the administration of justice.
xxx xxx xxx Respect to the courts guarantees the stability of other
(d) Any improper conduct tending, institutions, which without such guaranty would be resting
directly or indirectly, to impede, obstruct, on a very shaky foundation. 13
or degrade the administration of justice. Atty. Sotto was expressly found liable only for contempt and accordingly
A charge of indirect contempt, if proven in due proceedings, carry with it fined the amount of P1,000.00 payable within 15 days from promulgation
penal sanctions such as imprisonment or a fine or both. 6 of judgment. The unmistakable reference to Atty. Sotto's failure to observe
his ethical duties as a lawyer did not convert the action against him into a
The very same contumacious speech or conduct directed against a disciplinary proceeding. In fact, part of the disposition of the case was to
court or judicial officer, if committed by a member of the Bar, may likewise require Atty. Sotto to show cause, within the same period given for the
subject the offender to disciplinary proceedings under the Code of payment of the fine, why he should not be disbarred for his contemptuous
Professional Responsibility, which prescribes that lawyers observe and statements against the Court published in a newspaper.
promote due respect for the courts.7 In such disciplinary cases, the sanctions
are not penal but administrative such as, disbarment, suspension, reprimand Similar to Salcedo, Zaldivar v. Sandiganbayan 14 involved both
or admonition. contempt and disciplinary proceedings for the lawyer's act of making public
statements to the media that were offensive and disrespectful of the Court and
Contrary to Professors Catindig and Laforteza's theory, what its members relating to matters that were sub judice. This was evident in the
established jurisprudence tells us is that the same incident of contumacious May 2, 1988 Resolution of the Court which required respondent lawyer to
speech and/or behavior directed against the Court on the part of a lawyer may "explain in writing within ten (10) days from notice hereof, why he should not
be punishable either as contempt or an ethical violation, or both in the be punished for contempt of court and/or subjected to administrative
discretion of the Court. sanctions." 15 In Zaldivar, however, although the Court found that
respondent's act constituted both contempt and gross misconduct as a
In Salcedo v. Hernandez, 8 for the same act of filing in court a member of the Bar, he was only administratively sanctioned with an indefinite
pleading with intemperate and offensive statements, the concerned lawyer suspension from the practice of law.
was found guilty of contempt and liable administratively. For this reason, two
separate penalties were imposed upon him, a fine (for the contempt charge) The lesson imparted by the foregoing authorities is that, when the
and reprimand (for his failure to observe his lawyerly duty to give due respect Court initiates contempt proceedings and/or disciplinary proceedings against
to the Court). lawyers for intemperate and discourteous language and behavior directed at
the courts, the evil sought to be prevented is the same — the degradation of
The full case title 9 of In re: Atty. Vicente Raul Almacen 10 and the the courts and the loss of trust in the administration of justice. For this reason,
sanction imposed indubitably show that the proceeding involved therein it is not unusual for the Court to cite authorities on bar discipline (involving the
was disciplinary. Notwithstanding the fact that the Court in Almacen adverted duty to give due respect to the courts) in contempt cases against lawyers
to a few principles and authorities involving contempt proceedings aside from and vice versa.
jurisprudence on ethical responsibilities of lawyers, Atty. Almacen was only
meted out an administrative sanction (indefinite suspension from the practice Thus, when the Court chooses to institute an administrative case
of law) and no penal sanction was imposed upon him. Indeed, in Almacen, the against a respondent lawyer, the mere citation or discussion in the orders or
Court explicitly stated that whether or not respondent lawyer could be held decision in the administrative case of jurisprudence involving contempt
liable for contempt for his utterances and actuations was immaterial as the proceedings does not transform the action from a disciplinary proceeding to
sole issue in his disciplinary case concerns his professional identity, his sworn one for contempt. Respondents' contrary position in their motion for
duty as a lawyer and his fitness as an officer of the Court. 11 HTDCAS reconsideration is bereft of any rational merit. Had this Court opted to cite
respondents for contempt of court, which is punishable by imprisonment or
Conversely, In re Vicente Sotto 12 was purely a contempt proceeding. fine, this Court would have initiated contempt proceedings in accordance with
Nonetheless, the Court in that case saw fit to remind Atty. Sotto that: the Rules of Court. Clearly, the Court did not opt to do so. We cannot see why
As a member of the bar and an officer of the courts respondents would stubbornly cling to the notion that they were being cited for
Atty. Vicente Sotto, like any other, is in duty bound to uphold
indirect contempt under the Show Cause Resolution when there is no basis respondents' avowed noble motives have been given due weight and factored
for such belief other than their own apparent misreading of the same. HTCSDE in the determination of the action taken with respect to submissions of
respondents.
With respect to the second ground offered for reconsideration of the
Decision dated March 8, 2011, respondents continue to insist on their theory, In all, the Court finds that respondent Professors Catindig and
previously expounded in their Compliance, that the evidence and proceedings Laforteza have offered no substantial arguments to warrant a reconsideration
in A.M. No. 10-7-17-SC was relevant to their own administrative case and of the Decision dated March 8, 2011 nor to justify the grant of the reliefs prayed
thus; it was necessary for them to be granted access to the evidence and for in their motion.
records of that case in order to prove their own defenses in the present case.
The Decision already debunked at length the theory that if respondents are As for the Manifestation dated April 1, 2011, Dean Leonen and
able to prove the bases for their "well founded" concerns regarding the Professor Te alleged that "they support the Motion for Reconsideration which
plagiarism charge against Justice Del Castillo, then they would be exonerated was filed by Respondents Professors Tristan Catindig and Caren Laforteza on
of the administrative charges against them. It bears repeating here that what April 1, 2011." The rest of the assertions therein are mere restatements of
respondents have been required to explain was their contumacious, arguments previously proffered in respondents' compliances and have been
intemperate and irresponsible language and/or conduct in the issuance of extensively taken up in the Decision dated March 8, 2011. aIAHcE
the Restoring Integrity Statement, which most certainly cannot be justified by Since the Manifestation, apart from being an expression of support for
a belief, well-founded or not, that Justice Del Castillo and/or his legal Professors Catindig and Laforteza's motion for reconsideration, did not raise
researcher committed plagiarism. any new matter nor pray for any affirmative relief, the Court resolves to merely
To dispel respondents' misconception once and for all, it should be note the same.
stressed that this Court did not call the attention of respondents for having an WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court
opinion contrary to that of the Court in the plagiarism case against Justice Del hereby RESOLVES to (a) DENY the Motion for Reconsideration dated April 1,
Castillo. Notably, even their co-respondent Prof. Raul T. Vasquez stood fast 2011 filed by respondent Professors Tristan A. Catindig and Carina C.
on his opinion regarding the plagiarism issue. Still, he was able to simply relate Laforteza; and (b) NOTE the Manifestation dated April 1, 2011 filed by Dean
to this Court how he came to sign the Restoring Integrity Statement and Marvic M.V.F. Leonen and Professor Theodore O. Te.
candidly conceded that he may have failed to assess the effect of the language
of the Statement. This straightforward and honest explanation was found SO ORDERED.
satisfactory despite the lack of reference to the evidence in A.M. No. 10-7-17-
SC or the holding of any formal trial-type evidentiary hearing, which Corona, C.J., Velasco, Jr., Nachura, Brion, Peralta, Bersamin, Abad,
respondents know fully well was not mandatory in administrative proceedings. Perez and Mendoza, JJ., concur.
This circumstance belied respondents' justification for seeking access to the Carpio, J., I maintain my Dissent.
evidence and records of A.M. No. 10-7-17-SC and their assertion that they
have in any way been denied their due process rights. For the same reason Carpio Morales, J., my dissent remains.
that A.M. 10-7-17-SC and the present case are independent of each other, a
passing mention of respondent law professors in the Resolution dated Del Castillo, J., took no part.
February 8, 2011 in A.M. 10-7-17-SC is not proof that this Court has found Villarama, Jr., J., I maintain my separate opinion.
respondents guilty of falsely accusing Justice Del Castillo of plagiarism nor is
it any prejudgment of the present case. For if so, no one would be exonerated Sereno, J., I maintain my dissent.
or none of the compliances would be found satisfactory in this administrative
||| (In re: Letter of the UP Law Faculty on Allegations of Plagiarism and
case. Again, the case of Prof. Vasquez confirms that this Court duly
considered respondents' submissions in this case before coming to a decision. Misrepresentation in the Supreme Court, A.M. No. 10-10-4-SC (Resolution),
[June 7, 2011], 666 PHIL 1-10)
To buttress their third ground for reconsideration, respondents mainly
contend that the Court erred in taking the "emphatic language" in the
Statement in isolation from the other statements evidencing the good FIRST DIVISION
intentions of respondents and calling for constructive action. Again, these
arguments have been substantially addressed in the Decision dated March 8,
2011 and there is no need to belabor these points here. Suffice it to say that [G.R. No. 152072. January 31, 2006.]
 ROMEO G. ROXAS and SANTIAGO N. On 25 May 1983, said case was ordered archived 6 by Branch
PASTOR, petitioners, vs. ANTONIO DE ZUZUARREGUI, 141.
JR., ENRIQUE DE ZUZUARREGUI, PACITA JAVIER,
About a month before the aforecited case was ordered archived,
ELIZABETH R. GONZALES, JOSEFINA R. DAZA, ELIAS
the Zuzuarreguis engaged the legal services of Attys. Romeo G. Roxas
REYES, NATIVIDAD REYES, TERESITA REYES, JOSE
and Santiago N. Pastor, to represent them in Civil Case No. 26804. This
REYES and ANTONIO REYES,respondents.
was sealed by a Letter-Agreement dated 22 April 1983, which is partly
reproduced hereunder:
[G.R. No. 152104. January 31, 2006.] April 22, 1983
Mr. Antonio de Zuzuarregui, Jr.
ANTONIO DE ZUZUARREGUI, JR., ENRIQUE DE
ZUZUARREGUI, PACITA JAVIER, ELIZABETH R. Mrs. Pacita Javier (as heir to the
GONZALES, JOSEFINA R. DAZA, ELIAS REYES, late Jose de Zuzuarregui)
NATIVIDAD REYES, TERESITA REYES, JOSE REYES Mr. Antonio de Zuzuarregui ( as heir to
and ANTONIO REYES, petitioners, vs. THE NATIONAL the late Pilar Y. vda. De Zuzuarregui)
HOUSING AUTHORITY, JOSE B. H. PEDROSA, ROMEO
G. ROXAS and SANTIAGO N. PASTOR, respondents. Dear Sir and Madam:
This is to confirm in writing our verbal negotiations
for us to represent you in the expropriation proceedings filed
DECISION by the National Housing Authority against your goodselves
before the Court of First Instance of Rizal (now the Regional
Trial Court) and docketed as Civil Case No. 26804. Our
representation shall also include the areas taken over by the
CHICO-NAZARIO, J p: Ministry of Public Works and Highways which now formed
part of the Marcos Highway at Antipolo, Rizal. DCATHS
Before Us are two petitions for review on certiorari 1 which were
consolidated per Resolution 2 of this Court dated 27 November 2002. The The areas affected are the following:
petitioners inG.R. No. 152072, Attys. Romeo G. Roxas and Santiago N. xxx xxx xxx
Pastor, seek the reversal and annulment of the Decision 3 and
Resolution 4 of the Court of Appeals dated 25 June 2001 and 06 February We shall endeavor to secure the just compensation
2002, respectively. The petitioners in G.R. No. 152104, the Zuzuarreguis, with the National Housing Authority and other governmental
on the other hand, pray that the said Decision and Resolution of the Court agencies at a price of ELEVEN PESOS (P11.00) or more
of Appeals be modified. Said Decision and Resolution reversed and set per square meter. Any lower amount shall not entitle us to
aside the decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 98, Quezon any attorney's fees. At such price of P11.00 per square
City, dated 03 January 1994. meter or more our contingent fee[s] is THIRTY PERCENT
THE ANTECEDENTS (30%) of the just compensation.

The instant cases had their beginnings in 1977 when the National The other terms and conditions of our proposal are:
Housing Authority (NHA) filed expropriation proceedings against the xxx xxx xxx
Zuzuarreguis, petitioners in G.R. No. 152104, for parcels of land
belonging to the latter situated in Antipolo, Rizal, with a total land area of 5. You are willing to accept NHA 5-year bonds as
1,790,570.36 square meters, more or less. This case was lodged before part payment up to 75% of the total compensation. In the
the RTC, Branch 141, Municipality of Makati, 5 docketed therein as Civil event of your desire to discount the bonds, we shall assist
Case No. 26804 entitled, "National Housing Authority v. Pilar Ibañez Vda. to have them discounted at 75% of its face value.
De Zuzuarregui, et al."
 6. Our lawyer's fees shall be in the proportion of the legal age, . . . , do hereby appoint, name and constitute
cash/bonds ratio of the just compensation. Likewise our ATTYS. ROMEO G. ROXAS and SANTIAGO PASTOR, to
fees are subject to 10% withholding tax. be our true and lawful attorneys to act in our names and on
our behalves to do and execute all or any of the following
xxx xxx xxx acts and deeds subject to our approval:
Should the above proposal be acceptable to your xxx xxx xxx
goodselves, kindly signify your formal acceptance as (sic)
the space hereunder provided. (2) To represent us in the negotiations for a
compromise with the National Housing Authority for our
Very truly yours, properties subject of the above case;
(Sgd.) (Sgd.) (3) To negotiate for and in our behalves for the
SANTIAGO N. PASTOR ROMEO G. ROXAS settlement of the just compensation of our properties
Lawyer Lawyer payable in cash or in bonds;
(4) To sign and prepare all papers relative to the
CONFORME: preparation of a Compromise Agreement or any papers and
communications which shall eventually bear our signatures;
(Sgd.) (Sgd.)
and
ANTONIO DE ZUZUARREGUI, JR. PACITA JAVIER
(5) That this Special Power of Attorney is enforce
In my behalf and as heir to As heir to the late
(sic) as long as ATTYS. ROMEO G. ROXAS AND
The late Pilar Y. vda. De Jose De Zuzuarregui 7 SANTIAGO PASTOR are our lawyers in Civil CaseNo.
Zuzuarregui 26804 before the Regional Trial Court, Makati, Branch
CXLI.
A Motion to Set Case for Hearing, 8 dated 14 February 1984, was
filed by Attys. Roxas and Pastor in Civil Case No. 26804, praying that the HEREBY GIVING AND GRANTING unto our said
case be revived and be set for hearing by the court at the earliest date attorneys full power and authority whatsoever requisite or
available in its calendar. necessary or proper to be done in or about the premises, as
fully to all intents and purposes as we might or could lawfully
The appropriate proceedings thereafter ensued. On 29 October do if personally present, and hereby ratifying and confirming
1984, a Partial Decision was rendered by Branch 141 in Civil Case No. all that our said attorneys shall do or cause to be done under
26804 fixing the just compensation to be paid to the Zuzuarreguis at and by virtue of these presents. SaCIDT
P30.00 per square meter.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, We have hereunto set
The NHA filed a Motion for Reconsideration 9 dated 23 November our hands this 26th day of August, 1985, in Makati, M. M.,
1984 praying that the Partial Decision be reconsidered and set aside, and Philippines.
a new one rendered lowering the amount of just compensation in
accordance with applicable laws. Pending resolution thereof, a Joint (Sgd.)
Special Power of Attorney was executed by Antonio De Zuzuarregui, Jr.,
Enrique De Zuzuarregui and Pacita Javier, in favor of Attys. Roxas and ANTONIO DE ZUZUARREGUI, JR.
Pastor, viz: (Sgd.)
JOINT SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY
ENRIQUE DE ZUZUARREGUI
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:
(Sgd.)
That We, ANTONIO DE ZUZUARREGUI, JR.,
PACITA JAVIER 10
ENRIQUE DE ZUZUARREGUI and PACITA JAVIER, all of
 On 22 November 1985, a Special Power of Attorney was executed On 10 December 1985, a Letter-Agreement was executed by and
by Beatriz Zuzuarregui vda. De Reyes in favor of Attys. Romeo G. Roxas, between Antonio Zuzuarregui, Jr., Pacita Javier and Enrique De
Santiago Pastor and Basilio H. Toquero, quoted as follows: Zuzuarregui, on the one hand, and Attys. Romeo G. Roxas and Santiago
Pastor, on the other. The said Letter-Agreement reads:
SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY
December 10, 1985
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:
Atty. Romeo G. Roxas
That I, BEATRIZ ZUZUARREGUI VDA. DE
REYES, Filipino, of legal age, widow, and a resident of E. Atty. Santiago Pastor
Rodriguez Ave., Quezon City, Philippines do hereby
appoint, name and constitute ATTYS. ROMEO G. ROXAS, Makati Executive Center
SANTIAGO PASTOR and BASILIO H. TOQUERO, to be Salcedo Village, Makati
my true and lawful attorneys . . . :
Dear Atty. Roxas & Atty. Pastor:
1. To represent me in the negotiation for a
Compromise with the National Housing Authority for my This will confirm an amendment to our agreement
properties subject to my approval in CIVIL CASE No. regarding your attorney's fees as our lawyers and counsels
26804, entitled "National Housing Authority vs. Pilar Ibañez for the Zuzuarregui's properties expropriated by National
de Zuzuarregui, et al., before the Regional Trial Court, Housing Authority covering ONE HUNDRED SEVENTY-
Makati, Branch CXLI; NINE (179) HECTARES, more or less, covered by
TCT Nos. 138340, 85633 and 85634 and filed as Civil
2. To negotiate for and in my behalf for the Case No. 26804.
settlement of the just compensation of my properties
payable in cash or in bond, subject to my approval; We hereby confirm and agree that we are willing to
accept as final and complete settlement for our 179
3. To sign and prepare all papers relative to the hectares expropriated by NHA a price of SEVENTEEN
preparation of a Compromise Agreement or any papers and PESOS (P17.00) per square meter, or for a total of THIRTY
communications which shall eventually bear my signature; MILLION FOUR HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P30.4
4. To accept for and in my behalf payments for my Million), all payable in NHA Bonds. DcITHE
properties after the Compromise Agreement is duly We also agree and confirm that for and in
approved by the Court, the actual receipts of which consideration of your services as our lawyers and counsels
payments shall be signed by me. in the said expropriation case, we commit and bind
HEREBY GIVING AND GRANTING unto my said ourselves to pay to you, your heirs or assignees-in-interest,
attorneys full power and authority whatsoever requisite, as your contingent attorney's fees any and all amount in
necessary or proper . . . to be done under and by virtue of excess of the SEVENTEEN PESOS (P17.00) per square
these presents. meter payable in NHA bonds as mentioned above.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my This Letter Agreement serves also as your authority
hand this 22nd day of November 1985, in the City of Manila, to collect directly from NHA the amount pertaining to you as
Philippines. your contingent attorney's fees.

(Sgd.) This Letter Agreement hereby amends and

supersedes our previous agreement regarding your
BEATRIZ attorney's fees as our lawyers and counsels in the above-
ZUZUARREGUI mentioned expropriation case.
VDA. DE
REYES 11 Very truly yours,
 (Sgd.) (Sgd.) to P54,500,000.00. Out of this amount, the records show that the amount
ANTONIO DE ZUZUARREGUI, JR. PACITA JAVIER turned over to the Zuzuarreguis by Atty. Roxas amounted to
P30,520,000.00 in NHA bonds.
In my behalf as heir to As heir to the late
the late Pilar I. vda. de Jose De Zuzuarregui Computed at P19.50 per square meter, the 1,790,570.36 square
meters property of the Zuzuarreguis was expropriated at a total price of
Zuzuarregui P34,916,122.00. The total amount released by the NHA was
P54,500,000.00. The difference of P19,583,878.00 is, undoubtedly, the
(Sgd.) yield on the bonds.
ENRIQUE DE ZUZUARREGUI On 25 August 1987, a letter 19 was sent by the Zuzuarreguis' new
counsel, Jose F. Gonzalez, to Attys. Roxas and Pastor, demanding that
the latter deliver to the Zuzuarreguis the yield corresponding to bonds paid
CONFORME: by the NHA within a period of 10 days from receipt, under pain of
administrative, civil and/or criminal action.
(Sgd.) (Sgd.) Attys. Roxas and Pastor answered via a letter dated 21
ATTY. ROMEO G. ROXAS ATTY. SANTIAGO PASTOR 12 September 1987 explaining their side of the story. They stated therein,
among other things, that the amount that they got seems huge from the
Resolution No. 1174 13 dated 16 December 1985 was issued by surface, but it just actually passed their hands, as it did not really go to
the NHA stating that the Zuzuarregui property would be acquired at a cost them. 20
of P19.50 per square meter; that the Zuzuarreguis would be paid in NHA
Bonds, subject to the availability of funds; and that the yield on the bonds On 29 September 1987, a letter 21 was sent by the Zuzuarreguis
to be paid to the Zuzuarreguis shall be based on the Central Bank rate at through Antonio De Zuzuarregui, Jr., to Attys. Romeo G. Roxas and
the time of payment. Santiago N. Pastor, informing the latter that their services as counsels of
the Zuzuarreguis (except Betty) in the expropriation proceedings filed by
As a result of the aforesaid NHA Resolution, a Compromise the NHA, docketed as Civil CaseNo. 26804, was being formally
Agreement was executed between the Zuzuarreguis and the NHA in Civil terminated.
Case No. 26804. The Compromise Agreement, stipulated among other
things, that the just compensation of the Zuzuarregui properties would be Apparently unsatisfied with the explanation of Attys. Roxas and
at P19.50 per square meter payable in NHA Bonds. In a Decision dated Pastor, the Zuzuarreguis filed a civil action for Sum of Money and
20 December 1985, the RTC, Branch 141, Makati, approved the Damages on 14 November 1989 before the RTC, Quezon City, Branch
Compromise Agreement submitted by the parties. 98, docketed as Civil Case No. Q-89-4013, against the NHA, Jose B. H.
Pedrosa, Atty. Romeo G. Roxas and Atty. Santiago N. Pastor. The
On 27 December 1985, the NHA Legal Department, through Atty. Zuzuarreguis demanded that the yield on the NHA bonds be turned over
Jose B. H. Pedrosa, released to Atty. Romeo G. Roxas, in behalf of the to them.
Zuzuarreguis, the amount of P20,000,000.00 in NHA Bearer Bonds as
"partial payment for several parcels of land with a total area of After due hearing, a Decision 22 in Civil Case No. Q-89-4013 was
1,790,570.36 square meters located in Antipolo, Rizal." 14 On even date, rendered on 03 January 1994, dismissing the Complaint. The dispositive
Atty. Romeo G. Roxas delivered NHA Bonds to Antonio De Zuzuarregui portion reads:
in the amount of P15,000,000.00. 15 On 04 February 1986, the amount of WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing
P34,500,000.00 in Bearer Bonds was again released by the NHA to Atty. consideration[s], judgment is hereby rendered ordering the
Romeo G. Roxas in behalf of the Zuzuarreguis. 16 On 14 February 1986, dismissal of the complaint against all the defendants; and,
the Zuzuarreguis issued a receipt 17 for receiving the amount of further ordering plaintiffs, jointly and solidarily, to:
P30,070,000.00. This receipt included the P15,000,000.00 given to them
last 27 December 1985. Again on 17 February 1986, the Zuzuarreguis, 1. Pay each of the defendants Romeo G. Roxas,
through Beatriz Zuzuarregui vda. De Reyes, issued another receipt for the Santiago Pastor and Jose B. H. Perdosa, the
amount of P450,000.00 in NHA bonds. 18 The total amount in NHA bonds amount of P200,000.00, P200,000.00 and
released to Atty. Romeo G. Roxas in behalf of the Zuzuarreguis amounted P100,000.00, respectively, as moral damages;
 2. Pay each of the defendants Roxas, Pastor and On 05 March 2002, Attys. Roxas and Pastor filed a Petition for
Pedrosa, the amount of P50,000.00, P50,000.00, Review on Certiorari 29 assailing the Decision of the Court of Appeals,
and P25,000.00, respectively as exemplary docketed as G.R. No.152072. Likewise, on 21 March 2002, the
damages; Zuzuarreguis filed their own Petition for Review on Certiorari 30 assailing
the same Decision, docketed as G.R. No. 152104.
3. Pay attorney's fees to defendants Roxas and
Pastor in the amount of P20,000.00; and ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS

4. Pay the costs of this suit. Attys. Roxas and Pastor, petitioners in G.R. No. 152072, assign
as errors the following:
A Notice of Appeal 23 dated 10 February 1994 was filed by the
Zuzuarreguis. Subsequently, on 26 April 1995, the Zuzuarreguis filed their I
appeal brief with the Court of Appeals. The case was docketed as CA- THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY
G.R. CV No. 45732. ERRED ON A QUESTION OF LAW IN HOLDING THAT
A Decision 24 was eventually promulgated by the Fifteenth THE LETTER-AGREEMENT DATED DECEMBER 10,
Division of the Court of Appeals on 25 June 2001, reversing and setting 1985 CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO STAND AS THE LAW
aside the ruling of Branch 98, viz: BETWEEN THE PARTIES; and

Therefore, We find that the amount of II

P4,476,426.275 is, in the opinion of this Court,
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY
commensurate to the services rendered by defendants-
ERRED ON A QUESTION OF LAW IN HOLDING THAT
appellees. This amount has been arrived at by giving to
DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS, HEREIN PETITIONERS,
defendants-appellees P2.50 per square meter of the
CONCEALED TO THE PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES,
1,790,570.51 square meter expropriated properties of
HEREIN RESPONDENTS, THE YIELD OF THE NHA
herein plaintiffs-appellants.
BONDS 31
WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING,
The Zuzuarreguis, petitioners in G.R. No. 152101, on the other
the decision dated January 3, 1994 of the Regional Trial
hand, assign as errors the following:
Court, National Capital Judicial Region, Branch 98, Quezon
City in Civil Case No. 89-4013 entitled "Antonio I
Zuzuarregui, Jr., et al. versus National Housing Authority, et
al." for "Sum of Money and Damages," is THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN AWARDING TO
hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Defendants- PETITIONERS THE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF ONLY
Appellees Roxas and Pastor are hereby ordered to return P12,596,696.425 AND NOT P17,073,122.70 MAKING A
to plaintiffs-appellants the amount of P12,596,696.425, the DIFFERENCE OF P4,476,426.28
balance from the P17,073,122.70, received as yield from II
NHA bonds after deducting the reasonable attorney's fees
in the amount of P4,476,426.275. 25 THE RESPONDENTS SHOULD BE HELD LIABLE FOR
INTEREST FROM THE DATE OF THE FILING OF THE
Attys. Roxas and Pastor filed a Motion for Reconsideration 26 on COMPLAINT UNTIL FULLY PAID
25 July 2001. The Zuzuarreguis also filed a Motion for
Reconsideration 27 on 30 July 2001, not having been satisfied with the III
award, while the NHA and Pedrosa filed their Motions for
Reconsideration 28 on 03 August 2001. ACcEHI THE RESPONDENTS SHOULD BE HELD LIABLE FOR
MORAL AND EXEMPLARY DAMAGES AND
In a Resolution dated 06 February 2002, the Court of Appeals ATTORNEY'S FEES
denied for lack of merit all the Motions for Reconsideration.
IV
 THE RESPONDENTS NHA AND JOSE B.H. PEDROSA enough. According to them, the P12,596,696.425 awarded by the Court of
ARE JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY LIABLE WITH Appeals was not correct. They should have been awarded the amount of
RESPONDENTS ROXAS AND PASTOR 32 P17,073,122.70. Quoting the Zuzuarreguis:
ISSUE FOR RESOLUTION Respondents Roxas and Pastor retained for
themselves the amount of P3,980,000.00 which
Drawn from the above assignment of errors, it is patent that the represented the agreed attorney's fees of Roxas and Pastor
principal issue that must be addressed by this Court is: at P2.50 per square meter. The amount of P20,000,000.00
WHETHER OR NOT THE LETTER-AGREEMENT representing the yield of all the bearer bonds was, in the
DATED 10 DECEMBER 1985, EXECUTED BY THE words of the Court of Appeals, "deliberately hidden" by
ZUZUARREGUIS, AND ATTYS. ROXAS AND PASTOR, respondents Roxas and Pastor from petitioners. By
FIXING THE EXACT AMOUNT THAT MUST GO TO THE mathematical computation, the P20,000,000.00 yield
FORMER, SHOULD STAND AS LAW BETWEEN THE should be proportionately divided at the ratio of P17.00
PARTIES. (petitioners') and P2.50 (share of respondents Roxas and
Pastor). Following this ratio of division, of the
THE COURT'S RULING P20,000,000.00 yield, P17,073,122.70 should pertain to
Attys. Roxas and Pastor, petitioners in G.R. No. 152072, contend petitioners and the balance of P2,926,877.30 to
in the main that the Zuzuarreguis are only entitled to the amount of P17.00 respondents Roxas and Pastor. Add this amount to the total
per square meter for the 1,790,570.36 square meters expropriated by the of P3,980,000.00 at the agreed rate of P2.50 per square
government. This was, according to them, embodied in the Letter- meter, the total attorney's fees of respondents Roxas and
Agreement dated 10 December 1985, wherein the Zuzuarreguis agreed to Pastor should be P6,906,877.30, not bad, again in the
accept the price of P17.00 per square meter. Besides, Attys. Roxas and words of the Court of Appeals, for handling "a simple
Pastor contend that the price of P17.00 was even way above the P11.00 expropriation case which ended up in a compromise
that the Zuzuarreguis were willing to accept for their properties under the agreement." It was, therefore, in error to still deduct the
Letter of Engagement executed by the parties earlier on 22 April 1983. amount of P4,476,426.28 from petitioners share in the yield
Computed at P17.00 per square meter, they stress that the amount that in the amount of P17,073,122.70 leaving then only
should go to the Zuzuarreguis for their 1,790,570.36 square meters P12,596,696.42.
property should be P30,439,696.10, and that in fact the Zuzuarreguis have What was done, however, is that the product of
received P30,520,000.00. The Letter-Agreement dated 10 December 1,790,570.36 sq m. (area of the expropriated land of
1985 should thus stand as law between the parties. Since this Letter- petitioners) and P2.50 which is 4,476,426.28 was again
Agreement, which was "as plain and simple as can be such that there deducted from the P17,073,122.70 which is the
is no need for any further construction," already fixed the amount that corresponding share of the petitioners out of the total yield
would go to the Zuzuarreguis (P17.00 per square meter), then it should be of P20,000,000.00. If this were a criminal case, petitioners
so. ASHaDT were being sentenced twice for the same offense. 34
Attys. Roxas and Pastor further assert that the receipts issued by
The Zuzuarreguis further insist that legal interest on the amount
the Zuzuarreguis dated 14 February 1986 and 17 February 1986 indicated
of P17,073,122.70 be imposed from the date of the filing of the complaint,
that the amounts received by the latter were in "full and final payment" for
including moral and exemplary damages, and attorney's fees.
the subject properties.
We sustain the Court of Appeals, but with modification in the
The NHA, for its part, insists that there was no conspiracy
computation.
between Attys. Roxas and Pastor on the one hand, and the NHA and Atty.
Pedrosa on the other, on the application of yields from NHA bonds. 33 The A contract is a meeting of the minds between two persons
Zuzuarreguis, according to the NHA, "miserably failed to substantiate and whereby one binds himself, with respect to the other, to give something or
establish conspiracy" between them. to render some service. 35 Contracts shall be obligatory, in whatever form
they may have been entered into, provided all the essential requisites for
The Zuzuarreguis, for their part, though they were triumphant in
their validity are present. 36
the Court of Appeals, insist that the amounts awarded them were not
 Under Article 1318 of the Civil Code, there are three essential that in the presence of a contract for professional services
requisites which must concur in order to give rise to a binding contract: duly executed by the parties thereto, the same becomes the
(1) consent of the contracting parties; (2) object certain which is the law between the said parties is not absolute but admits an
subject matter of the contract; and (3) cause of the obligation which is exception — that the stipulations therein are not contrary to
established. 37 law, good morals, good customs, public policy or public
order.44
All these requisites were present in the execution of the Letter-
Agreement. Under the contract in question, Attys. Roxas and Pastor are to
Consent is manifested by the meeting of the offer and the receive contingent fees 45 for their professional services. It is a deeply-
acceptance upon the thing and the cause which are to constitute the rooted rule that contingent fees are not per se prohibited by law. They are
contract. 38 The Zuzuarreguis, in entering into the Letter-Agreement, fully sanctioned by Canon 13 of the Canons of Professional Ethics, viz:
gave their consent thereto. In fact, it was them (the Zuzuarreguis) who 13. Contingent Fees. —
sent the said letter to Attys. Roxas and Pastor, for the purpose of
confirming all the matters which they had agreed upon previously. There A contract for contingent fee, where sanctioned by
is absolutely no evidence to show that anybody was forced into entering law, should be reasonable under all the circumstances of
into the Letter-Agreement. Verily, its existence, due execution and the case including the risk and uncertainty of the
contents were admitted by the Zuzuarreguis themselves. 39 compensation, but should always be subject to the
supervision of a court, as to its reasonableness. SDTIaE
The second requisite is the object certain. The objects in this case
are twofold. One is the money that will go to the Zuzuarreguis (P17.00 per and Canon 20, Rule 20.01 of the Code of Professional
square meter), and two, the money that will go to Attys. Roxas and Pastor Responsibility, 46 viz:
(any and all amount in excess of P17.00 per square meter). There was CANON 20 — A LAWYER SHALL CHARGE ONLY
certainty as to the amount that will go to the Zuzuarreguis, and there was FAIR AND REASONABLE FEES.
likewise certainty as to what amount will go to Attys. Roxas and Pastor.
Rule 20.01. — A lawyer shall be guided by the
The cause is the legal service that was provided by Attys. Roxas
following factors in determining his fees:
and Pastor. In general, cause is the why of the contract or the essential
reason which moves the contracting parties to enter into the contract. 40 (a) The time spent and the extent of the services rendered
It is basic that a contract is the law between the or required;
parties. 41 Obligations arising from contracts have the force of law (b) The novelty and difficulty of the question involved;
between the contracting parties and should be complied with in good faith.
Unless the stipulations in a contract are contrary to law, morals, good (c) The importance of the subject matter;
customs, public order or public policy, the same are binding as between
(d) The skill demanded;
the parties. 42
In Licudan v. Court of Appeals, 43 we did not allow the Contract (e) The probability of losing other employment as a result
for Professional Services between the counsel and his client to stand as of acceptance of the proffered case;
the law between them as the stipulation for the lawyer's compensation was (f) The customary charges for similar services and the
unconscionable and unreasonable. We said: schedule of fees of the IBP chapter to which he
Although the Contract for Professional Services belongs;
dated August 30, 1979 was apparently voluntarily signed by
(g) The amount involved in the controversy and the
the late Aurelio Licudan for himself and on behalf of his
benefits resulting to the client from the service;
daughter, petitioner Cristina Licudan-Campos and by the
petitioner Wilfredo Licudan who both manifested in open (h) The contingency or certainty of compensation;
court that they gave their free and willing consent to the said
contract, we cannot allow the said contract to stand as the (i) The character of the employment, whether occasional
law between the parties involved considering that the rule or established; and
 (j) The professional standing of the lawyer. rata. The amount of P17.00 that should go to the Zuzuarreguis represents
87.18% of the P19.50 per square meter just compensation, The P2.50 per
However, in cases where contingent fees are sanctioned by law, square meter that was to go to Attys. Roxas and Pastor, on the other hand,
the same should be reasonable under all the circumstances of the case, represents 12.82%.
and should always be subject to the supervision of a court, as to its
reasonableness, 47 such that under Canon 20 of the Code of Professional The Zuzuarreguis are entitled to the yield equal to 87.18% of the
Responsibility, a lawyer is tasked to charge only fair and reasonable fees. P19,583,878.00, while Attys. Roxas and Pastor are entitled to 12.82% of
said amount. The amount corresponding to 87.17% of P19,583,878.00 is
Indubitably entwined with the lawyer's duty to charge only P17,073,224.84. This is the yield that the Zuzuarreguis are entitled to.
reasonable fees is the power of this Court to reduce the amount of Attys. Roxas and Pastor, on the other hand, are entitled to P2,510,653.16.
attorney's fees if the same is excessive and unconscionable. 48 Thus,
Section 24, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court partly states: Attys. Roxas and Pastor, in the opinion of this Court, were not
shortchanged for their efforts for they would still be earning or actually
SEC. 24. Compensation of attorneys; agreement earned attorney's fees in the amount of P6,987,078.75 (P4,476,425.59 +
as to fees. — An attorney shall be entitled to have and P2,510,653.16).
recover from his client no more than a reasonable
compensation for his services, with a view to the importance The amount of P17,073,224.84 must therefore be returned by
of the subject matter of the controversy, the extent of the Attys. Roxas and Pastor to the Zuzuarreguis. They can take this out from
services rendered, and the professional standing of the the yield in the amount of P19,583,878.00 which they have appropriated
attorney. . . . . A written contract for services shall control for themselves.
the amount to be paid therefore unless found by the court On the issue of moral and exemplary damages, we cannot award
to be unconscionable or unreasonable. the same for there was no direct showing of bad faith on the part of Attys.
Attorney's fees are unconscionable if they affront one's sense of Roxas and Pastor, for as we said earlier, contingency fees are not per
justice, decency or reasonableness. 49 It becomes axiomatic therefore, se prohibited by law. It is only necessary that it be reduced when
that power to determine the reasonableness or the, unconscionable excessive and unconscionable, which we have already done.
character of attorney's fees stipulated by the parties is a matter falling We likewise cannot hold the NHA and Atty. Pedrosa jointly and
within the regulatory prerogative of the courts. 50 severally liable to the Zuzuarreguis for there is no evidence to show
In the instant case, Attys. Roxas and Pastor received an amount conspiracy between them.
which was equal to forty-four percent (44%) of the just compensation paid WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing considerations, the
(including the yield on the bonds) by the NHA to the Zuzuarreguis, or an Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals dated 25 June 2001 and
amount equivalent to P23,980,000.00 of the P54,500,000.00. Considering 06 February 2002, respectively, are AFFIRMED but with the
that there was no full blown hearing in the expropriation case, ending as it MODIFICATION that Attys. Romeo G. Roxas and Santiago N. Pastor are
did in a Compromise Agreement, the 44% is, undeniably, unconscionable hereby ordered to return to the Zuzuarreguis the amount of
and excessive under the circumstances. Its reduction is, therefore, in P17,073,224.84. No costs.
order. This is in accordance with our ruling in the earlier case of Tanhueco
v. De Dumo 51 , where we reduced the amount of attorney's fees from SO ORDERED.
sixty percent (60%) to fifteen percent (15%), for being excessive and Panganiban, C.J., Ynares-Santiago, Austria-
unreasonable. Martinez and Callejo, Sr., JJ., concur.
It is imperative that the contingent fees received by Attys. Roxas ||| (Roxas v. De Zuzuarregui, Jr., G.R. Nos. 152072 & 152104, [January 31,
and Pastor must be equitably reduced. In the opinion of this Court, the 2006], 516 PHIL 605-627)
yield that corresponds to the percentage share of the Zuzuarreguis in the
P19.50 per square meter just compensation paid by the NHA must be
returned by Attys. Roxas and Pastor. HICEca
The yield on the NHA bonds amounted to P19,583,878.00. This
amount must therefore be divided between the Zuzuarreguis, on the one
hand, and Attys. Roxas and Pastor, on the other. The division must be pro