Civil Law 2- ObliCon- TRB Employees Union- Independent vs. NLRC and Emmanuel Noel A. Cruz

This case is with reference to Art 1160 of the New Civil Code- Quasi- Contracts
Case of Traders Royal Bank Employees Union- Independent vs NLRC and Emmanuel Noel A. Cruz
G.R.No. 120592 14March1997

FACTS OF THE CASE:
That TRB Employees Union, had a retainer agreement with Atty. Cruz, for 3,000.00 in consideration of the law firm’s undertaking to render the services enumerated in their contract. During the existence of the agreement the union referred to the private respondent the claims of its members for holiday, mid-year and year-end bonuses against their employer TRB.
The NLRC granted the petition of the union with regard to the demand for bonuses. After, the S.C. acting upon the challenge of TRBank of the NLRC decision in its decision on August 30, 1990 modified the decision of the NLRC by deleting the award of mid- year and year- end bonus differentials while affirming the award of holiday pay differential.

After TRB voluntarily complied with the decision, the respondent on September 18, 1990 notified the union, TRB management, and the NLRC of his right to exercise and enforce his attorney’s lien over the award of holiday pay differential through a letter dated October 8, 1990.

ISSUES OF THE CASE:

Was the lien made by the respondent attorney over the award as attorney’s fees valid?

- Yes, Because the contract between the Union and the attorney stipulates that the 3,000.00 paid as retainer fees is intended merely as a consideration for the law firm’s commitment to render the services enumerated on PART A and B of the retainer agreement.
- The retainer fee paid by the Union is not a payment for the firm’s execution or performance of the services listed in the contract, subject to the particular qualifications.
- Obligations do not emanate only from contracts. One of the sources of extra- contractual obligations found in our civil code is the quasi contract premised on the roman maxim that nemo alterius detrimento locupletari potest
- As early as 1903 the court has allowed the payment of reasonable professional fees to an interpreter, not withstanding the lack of understanding with his client as to his remuneration, on the basis a quasi-contract. It is not necessary that the parties agree on a definite fee for the special services rendered by the firm in order that the union may be obligated to pay compensation. Equity and fair play dictate that petitioner should pay the same after it accepted, availed itself of, and benefited from the firm’s services.
- The measure of compensation for private respondent’s services as against his client should be properly addressed by the rule of quantum meruit is used as the basis for determining the lawyer’s professional fees in the absence of a contract.
HELD:
The resolution of the NLRC with regard to the attorney’s fees is modified, and Union is hereby ordered to pay 10,000 for the firm’s rendered services.

Obligations and Contracts Terms:

• General Retaining Fee- is the fee paid to a lawyer to secure his future services as general counsel for any ordinary legal problem that may arise from routinary business of the client and referred to him for legal action. The reason for the remuneration is that the lawyer is deprived of the opportunity of rendering services for a fee to the opposing party or other parties. It is a compensation for lost opportunities.

I hope this helps.

Jeff David