Interpellation

1. Do you consider a 25k a reasonable attornees fee?

2. How about 500k, do you consider it as reasonable?

3. So meaning you don’t give regard to the amount as to Attorneys fee. It is always valid
regardless of the amount?

4. How about if the whole amount subject of the case will be awarded to the lawyer, and
nothing will be left to his client, do you still consider it as a valid Contingent fee? (maybe
omitted)

ISSUE 3
If instead, Louie agrees to take the case upon Wendy’s promise to give him the
entire ₱ 500,000 meant for Cora, should he win the case but only ₱ 25,000 should he
lose, would this be correctly characterized as a contingent fee?

SPEECH (Negative Side)

To the Honorable Chief Adjudicator, JUDGE RAQUEL REYES AGLAUA, my group

mates on this debate, as well as, our opponent team, classmates, good evening.

My opponent argued that it is a valid contingent fee contract if Louis agrees to take the
case upon Wendy’s promise to give him the entire ₱ 500,000 meant for Cora, should he
win the case but only ₱ 25,000 should he lose.

To better address this issue, let me first give a clear distinction between a champertous
contract and a contingent fee.

I. In the case of Bautista vs Gonzales, it describes a champertous agreement

as one “whereby an attorney agrees to pay the expenses of proceedings to enforce his
client’s rights.” In other words, in champertous contracts, the lawyer is the one paying
for all the costs and fees of the case, without reimbursement from the client.

This is in contrary to Canon 42 of the Canons of Professional Ethics which

provides that a lawyer may not properly agree with a client to pay or bear the expenses
of litigation. [See also Rule 16.04, Code of Professional Responsibility]. Although a
lawyer may in good faith, advance the expenses of litigation, the same should be
subject to reimbursement.

II. On the other hand, a contingent fee is defined in the case of Taganas vs
NLRC as “an agreement laid down in an express contract between a lawyer and a client
in which the lawyer's professional fee, usually a fixed percentage of what may be
recovered in the action is made to depend upon the success of the litigation.” Thus, in
contingent fees, the lawyer gets paid the agreed amount if the case is successful,
otherwise, he does not get paid, or gets paid a lower agreed amount. This does not
mean though that the lawyer necessarily pays the costs and fees of the suit. The clients
may still be paying for the costs of the suit, but the lawyer gets paid his agreed fee if
they win.

Going back to the issue on whether it is correctly characterized as a contingent fee

when a 500k should be given to Atty Louis should he win the case, and on the other
hand, ₱ 25,000 should he lose.

We DISAGREE. Such agreement is not correctly characterized as a contingent

Fee. It is invalid for being UNREASONABLE.

In the case of Taganas vs. NLRC, SC said that Contingent Fee arrangement should
always be subject to the supervision of the court, as to its reasonableness.

In this case, we see the great difference of the amount of Attornees fee. P25, 000
should he lost the case, but in the event of winning the case, a vast increase on the
Attornees fee amounting to 500,000.00. This is excessive and unconscionable.

To permit these arrangements is to enable the lawyer to "acquire additional stake in the
outcome of the action which might lead him to consider his own recovery rather than
that of his client or to accept a settlement which might take care of his interest in the
verdict to the sacrifice of that of his client in violation of his duty of undivided fidelity to
his client’s cause.

My opponents said that the agreed amount of attorney’s fee was based on the criteria
as provided under the Code of Professional Responsibility, particularly Canon 20.01
and the Rules of Court (Rule 138, Section 24). But my question is why 500K, why not a
lesser amount of let say 300k, or why not an amount more than 500k? What really is the
target or intention of this desired amount of 500k as Attorneys fee?

To get the point on this, we have to realize that in the will, the very intent of the testator
was to give to Cora such amount of 500k. But Wendy, the wife of the testator wants to
question the will in order for such amount of 500k will be awarded to her instead of
Cora. And hence, she seeks for the services of Atty Louis for that purpose.

Now if we allow the demand of Atty Louis on the amount of 500k as a contingent fee. it
is very clear that it is him who will benefit on the outcome of the case should they win,
and nothing even a single cent can be left for Wendy, his client.
Jurisprudence dictates that the attorney’s fee consisting of one-half of the subject
property is excessive and unconscionable. More so in this case that the lawyer gets the
entire amount of the subject matter in the case.

All told, we on the negative side strongly believed that the Attorneys fee is unreasonable
and hence invalid.