This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2013-09-09 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| In support of the Motion for Intervention, the Intervenor cites the rulings in Aro v. Nañawa[24] and Law Firm of Raymundo A. Armovit v. Court of Appeals,[25] particularly the following passage:x x x. While We here reaffirm the rule that "the client has an undoubted right to compromise a suit without the intervention of his lawyer," We hold that when such compromise is entered into in fraud of the lawyer, with intent to deprive him of the fees justly due him, the compromise must be subject to the said fees and that when it is evident that the said fraud is committed in confabulation with the adverse party who had knowledge of the lawyer's contingent interest or such interest appears of record and who would benefit under such compromise, the better practice is to settle the matter of the attorney's fees in the same proceeding, after hearing all the affected parties and without prejudice to the finality of the compromise agreement in so far as it does not adversely affect the right of the lawyer.[26] x x x. | |||||
|
2011-10-05 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Petitioner Law Firm of Raymundo A. Armovit (Armovit Law Firm) captioned the present action as a "Petition and/or Motion for Execution." As a Petition for Certiorari, petitioner assails the Resolutions of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 43099 dated November 28, 1996,[1] August 27, 2001[2] and June 11, 2002,[3] as well as the Orders of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of San Fernando, La Union in Civil Case No. 2794 dated February 24 and June 7, 1993. As a Motion for Execution, petitioner seeks the execution of the 1991 Decision of this Court in G.R. No. 90983, entitled Law Firm of Raymundo A. Armovit v. Court of Appeals.[4] | |||||
|
2007-02-12 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| May Usapin[24] A contingent fee arrangement is valid in this jurisdiction[25] and is generally recognized as valid and binding but must be laid down in an express contract.[26] The amount of contingent fee agreed upon by the parties is subject to the stipulation that counsel will be paid for his legal services only if the suit or litigation prospers. A much higher compensation is allowed as contingent fee in consideration of the risk that the lawyer may get nothing if the suit fails.[27] Contracts of this nature are permitted because they redound to the benefit of the poor client and the lawyer "especially in cases where the client has meritorious cause of action, but no means with which to pay for legal services unless he can, with the sanction of law, make a contract for a contingent fee to be paid out of the proceeds of the litigation. Oftentimes, the contingent fee arrangement is the only means by which the poor and helpless can seek redress for injuries sustained and have their rights vindicated."[28] | |||||