G.R. No. 149844, 13 October 2004

FACTS:

Respondent filed the initiatory complaint for specific performance against her uncle Petitioner, which averred, inter alia that her late father and petitioner formed the ‘Cuenco and Cuenco Law Offices’; that the Law Offices served as lawyers in two (2) cases involving a dispute among relatives over ownership of lot; that records of said cases indicate the name of the petitioner alone as counsel of record, but in truth and in fact, the real lawyer behind the success of said cases was Respondent’s father; that after winning said cases, both lawyers received as attorney’s fees a 5,000 sqms. Lot.

However, at the time of distribution, Respondent’s father was actively practicing law in Manila, and so he entrusted his share to the petitioner. Petitioner was able to obtain in his own name a title for said Lot; that he was under the obligation to hold the title in trust for his brother children by first marriage.

Subsequently, Petitioner alleged that he was the absolute owner of Lot 903-A-6; that this lot was a portion of Lot 903-A which in turn was part of Lot 903 which was the subject matter of litigation; that he was alone in defending the cases involving Lot 903 without the participation of respondent’s father; that he donated five (5) of the six (6) portions of Lot 903-A to the five (5) children of respondent’s father out of gratitude for the love and care they exhibited to him during the time of his long sickness; that he did not give or donate any portion of the lot to the respondent because she never visited him nor took care of him during his long sickness.

Judgment was rendered in favor of the respondent as the owner of the disputed lot. The trial court ruled that the subject land is part of the attorney’s fees of Respondent’s father and petitioner merely holds such property in trust for [her], his title there [to] notwithstanding.

Hence, this petition.

ISSUE:

Whether the subject lot constitutes a part of Respondent’s Father share in the Attorney’s Fees.

RULING:

YES, the subject lot constitutes a share on the profits.

It has sufficiently been proven, however, that these defendants were represented by the Cuenco and Cuenco Law Office, composed of Partners Mariano Cuenco and Miguel Cuenco. Given as attorney’s fees was one hectare of Lot 903, of which two five-thousand square meter portions were identified as Lot 903-A and Lot 903-B. That only Miguel handled Civil Case No. 9040 does not mean that he alone is entitled to the attorney’s fees in the said cases. “When a client employs the services of a law firm, he does not employ the services of the lawyer who is assigned to personally handle the case. Rather, he employs the entire law firm.” Being a partner in the law firm, Mariano – – like Miguel – – was likewise entitled to a share in the attorney’s fees from the firm’s clients. Hence, the lower courts’ finding that Lot 903-A was a part of Mariano Cuenco’s attorney’s fees has ample support.

*Case digest by Doreena Pauline V. Aranal, JD – 4, Andres Bonifacio College, SY 2019 – 2020