Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Quirante v IAC ruling on attorney fees

    Uploaded by

    anon_146977263
    97 views1 page
    Dr. Casasola had hired a contractor for a building project. When the contractor failed to perform, Dr. Casasola sued for damages with his attorney, John Quirante. The trial court ruled in Dr. Casasola's favor, but he passed away. Quirante then filed to confirm his attorney's fees. The appellate court denied the request, finding it was premature since the main case was not yet final. The Supreme Court affirmed, stating an attorney's fee cannot be determined until the main case is decided and recovery is available, from which the fee can be paid. They also noted the trial court should consider contingencies when determining attorney's fees.

    Original Description:

    Quirante

    Original Title

    Quirante v Iac (Canon 20)

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Dr. Casasola had hired a contractor for a building project. When the contractor failed to perform, Dr. Casasola sued for damages with his attorney, John Quirante. The trial court ruled in Dr. Casasola's favor, but he passed away. Quirante then filed to confirm his attorney's fees. The appellate court denied the request, finding it was premature since the main case was not yet final. The Supreme Court affirmed, stating an attorney's fee cannot be determined until the main case is decided and recovery is available, from which the fee can be paid. They also noted the trial court should consider contingencies when determining attorney's fees.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    97 views1 page

    Quirante v IAC ruling on attorney fees

    Uploaded by

    anon_146977263
    Dr. Casasola had hired a contractor for a building project. When the contractor failed to perform, Dr. Casasola sued for damages with his attorney, John Quirante. The trial court ruled in Dr. Casasola's favor, but he passed away. Quirante then filed to confirm his attorney's fees. The appellate court denied the request, finding it was premature since the main case was not yet final. The Supreme Court affirmed, stating an attorney's fee cannot be determined until the main case is decided and recovery is available, from which the fee can be paid. They also noted the trial court should consider contingencies when determining attorney's fees.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 1

    Quirante v.

    IAC
    169 SCRA 769 (1989)
    RA 5185 see. 6 Rule 138. sec. 24; 32, Rules of Court
    Regalado, J.

    Facts: Dr. Casasola had a contract with a building contractor named Norman Guerrero and
    PHILAMGEN. After failing to perform their parts of the contract, Dr. Indalecio Casasola, thru his
    counsel, Atty. John Quirante, sued them for damages. The Trial Court ruled in favor of Casasola.
    However, Dr. Casasola died. Thus, petitioner Atty. Quirante filed an appeal for the confirmation
    of his attorney’s fees after the Trial Court ruled in favor of Dr. Casasola’s claim against its erring
    bulding contractor.

    According to him, there was an oral agreement between him and the late Dr. Casasola with regard
    to his attorney's fees, which agreement was allegedly confirmed in writing by the widow, Asuncion
    Vda. de Casasola, and the two daughters of the deceased, namely Mely C. Garcia and Virginia
    C. Nazareno. That:

    In case of recovery of the P120,000.00 surety bond, the attorney's fees of the undersigned
    counsel (Atty. Quirante) shall be P30,000.00.

    The Trial Court granted the motion for confirmation. However, according to the respondent court
    (Intermediate Appellate Court), the confirmation of attorney’s fees is premature

    Issue: Whether or not Atty. Quirante is entitled of the attorney’s fees

    Held: No. Atty. Quirante is not entitled of the attorney’s fees. The ruling of the respondent court
    was affirmed because the main case from which the petitioner's claims for their fees may
    arise has not yet become final, the determination of the propriety of said fees and the
    amount thereof should be held in abeyance.

    Further, “an attorney's fee cannot be determined until after the main litigation has been decided
    and the subject of recovery is at the disposition of the court. The issue over attorney's fee only
    arises when something has been recovered from which the fee is to be paid.”

    Moreover, in determining the propriety and assessing the extent of recovery of attorney’s fees, it
    is held that the Court a quo should determine such issue contingencies

    You might also like