DEBATE SPEECH: 2ND AFFIRMATIVE SPEAKER

Ladies and gentlemen, good evening! If there is one

thing that law school has taught me, it is this: How
to take two situations that are almost exactly alike
in all respects and show that they are actually
different. Tonight’s second debate topic goes
directly towards our collective position on the
issue.

We, in the affirmative side, strongly believe that

there is nothing ethically wrong to have a sizable
share from the proceeds of the property that is the
subject matter of an out-of-court settlement. The
opposing side of this debate would want us to
believe otherwise. But right here – right now - we
proudly stand our ground based on the following
reasons:

First, jurisprudence supports our view that in

cases where real properties are at stake, just like
in our role-play, the amount of share that a lawyer
should get, as a compensation, largely depends
upon the agreement by the parties. As we have
learned in Civil Law, the contract itself is the law
between the parties and thus, should be complied
with in good faith.

Second, in any extra-judicial settlement of estates,

the term ‘extra-judicial’ itself simply means
‘outside’ of the purview of the court. So, whatever
agreement entered into by the client and his
lawyer on the matter of contingency fees, that
should prevail – for as long as no evident fraud
attends to the forging of the agreement by and
between them and neither the client himself is
coerced, forced nor held under duress.

And third, if the agreement itself does not amount

to champerty, then it must and should be held
valid and binding as to the parties. If I may quote
from a recent Supreme Court decision, champerty
is any agreement by a client and his lawyer for the
latter to conduct litigation at his own account, to
pay the expenses thereof or to receive, as his fee,
a portion of the proceeds of the judgment.

Your Honor, panel of adjudicators, fellow

speakers, and friends: The primary issue in this
debate should therefore be threshed out based on
the nature of the case. And we in the affirmative
side think that it all boils down to the fundamental
question of whether or not the case is filed in court
or the case is simply an out-of-court settlement.

So, if the property involved is subject to any

pending litigation in court and the agreement
stipulates any contingency fee out of the
substantial portion of the property, then it is not
only unethical but void, as well, for reason of
public policy.

But let me clarify this point. From the start, I made

emphasis on out-of-court settlement, not pending
litigation in court. If the property may form part of a
judgment in proper judicial proceedings, it is
certainly prohibited under the Code of Professional
Responsibility and jurisprudence.
Specifically, under Canon 20 of the CPR, a lawyer
shall charge only fair and reasonable fees, subject
only to certain parameters qualifying the fees that
lawyers may impose. In our role-play, the property
subject to partition by the compulsory heirs
proceeds outside from the purview of the court. In
short, it is an extra-judicial settlement of estate by
the decedent father whose recognized but
illegitimate son was left out in the cold only to get
a disproportionate share from his father’s wealth.
He wouldn’t have obtained his fair share of
inheritance without the lawyer who undertook the
extra-judicial settlement on his behalf.

In Spouses Cadavedo vs Lacaya, the lawyer sued

his clients in court and demanded that 50% of the
real property subject of litigation proceedings
should be paid to him as part of his contingency
fee. This is on top of the separate written
agreement that he had with the client stipulating
that should the court rule in the client’s favor, the
latter – meaning, the clients – are obliged to pay
their lawyer the amount of P2,000.

In the case I just cited, Mr. Speaker, the Supreme

Court decided in favor of the lawyer’s clients,
Spouses Cadavedo and their heirs, against the
lawyer’s champertous claim. In this case, the
written stipulation of P2,000 as payment for the
lawyer governs over the alleged contingency fee
of 50% or ½ of the value of property.

Why did the Court rule it to be so? Well, the

answer to this is simple: Because the agreement
is essentially void ab initio being essentially
champertous! Maintaining a case and paying all
the cost of litigation in the hope of obtaining a
favorable court decision is the hallmark of
champerty, more so if the property subject of
pending litigation in court, is the basis of
compensation for the lawyer who handles the
case.

Finally, as a recap to our points, the affirmative

holds the view that there are no ethical issues
involved if the lawyer gets a sizable chunk of the
property in an out-of-court settlement of estate, for
as long as it is part of a contingency fee that is
spelled out clearly in an enforceable contractual
arrangement. What our jurisprudence considers
void, or unenforceable in our courts of law, are
champertous agreements that are directly tied to
or connected with the property subject to pending
litigation.

Thus, if the dispute itself is resolved beyond the

domain of judicial control, such as any out-of-court
settlement of cases, and there exists a valid
written contract relative therefor, then no ethical
breach is committed by the lawyer who
participates in the extra-judicial settlement and
who, after favorable result is obtained, gets his
equitable share out of a fractional portion of the
value of property.

To be paid otherwise would certainly not be fair

and just!
Thank you!