Dee vs.

Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 77439
August 24, 1989
“No written contract of services about the gambling debt”
Facts:
Donald Dee sought the services of Atty. Mutuc with respect to his son Dewey’s gambling debt
in Caesar’s palace who is allegedly affiliated with a mafia. The indebtedness is in the amount of
$1,000,000.

Atty. Mutuc, resolved the same and was able to convince Ramon Sy to account for the said
amount.

Thereafter, Atty. Mutuc sent several demand letters to Donald Dee. However, Donald Dee
refuses to pay the same.

Consequently, Atty. Mutuc filed a complaint against Donald Dee for the collection of attorney’s
fees and transport fare and expenses.

For his part, Donald Dee argues the existence of any professional relationship of attorney and
client between him and Atty. Mutuc as the visit was merely for advice and that Atty. Mutuc was
not formally contracted to handle the problem.
Issue:
Whether or not Mutuc is liable to pay attorney’s fees.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court, speaking through Justice Regalado, ruled that, YES, Mutuc is liable to pay
attorney’s fees.

Because, documentary formalism is not an essential element in the employment of an attorney;

the contract may be express or implied.

In the case at bar, while it is true that there was no written contract forged between Atty.
Mutuc and Donald Dee, the efforts extended by Atty. Mutuc redounded to the benefit of Dee
considering that Ramon Sy cleared the debt which freed him much less Dewey Dee.

Therefore, Atty. Mutuc is entitled to have and receive the just and reasonable compensation for
services rendered.