Claro M. Recto vs. Esperanza P.

HardenG.R. No. L-6897, November 29, 1956

FACTS: Esperanza Harden contracted the legal services of Atty. Claro M. Recto as
embodied in the Contractof Professional Services entered into between them. t is
in connection with the action which she intendedto !le against her husband Fred
M. Harden for the purpose of securing an increase in the amount of support
being received by her from the conjugal partnership of her and said Fred M.
Harden, and for the purposelikewise of protecting and preserving her rights in
the properties of the said conjugal partnership incontemplation of the divorce
suit which she intent to file against him in the competent Court of California and
of the liquidation of the conjugal partnership between them.
To compensate Atty. Recto for the services, Esperanza bund herself in lieu of
retainers fees to pay the former during the pendency of the litigation and until
the termination of the same twenty five (25%) per cent of the total increase in
allowance or pension which may be awarded to her by the court over and above
the amount of P1,500.00 which she now receive monthly from Fred M. Harden
out of the funds of the conjugal partnership and that if the case is terminated or
an amicable settlement thereof be arrived at by the parties before theexpiration
of two years from the date of the filing of the complaint, she shall continue to
pay the said 25% tothe end of the period. Moreover, as full and complete
satisfaction of the fees of Attorney Claro M. Recto inconnection with the case and
said case being for the purposes aforestated, Esperanza also bound herself topay
Atty. Recto 205 of the value of the share and participation which may receive in
the funds and properties of the said conjugal partnership of her and Fred M.
Harden, as a result of the liquidation thereof either bydeath, divorce, judicial
separation, compromise or by any means or method by virtue of which said
partnership is or may be liquidated.
Pursuant to the agreement, Atty. Recto commenced a civil action against Fred
Harden in the CFI of Manila. Asprayed for in the complaint, the court issued the
writ of preliminary injunction against Fred restraining himfrom disposing the
assets of the conjugal partnership in fraud of Esperanza. Subsequently, Japanese
forcesinvaded the Philippines and placed the latter under military occupation.
During the liberation the records ofthe case were destroyed but the same were
reconstituted at the instance of Atty. Recto. Thereafter, the CFIrendered a
decision in favor of Esperanza to which Fred appealed.
Mrs. Harden had instructed him, by letter, to discontinue all proceedings relative
to said case, vacate allorders and Judgments rendered therein, and abandon and
nullify all her claims to the conjugal partnership existing between her and Mr.
Harden, in accordance with several instruments executed without the Knowledge,
advise and consent of him as counsel for Mrs. Harden, whereby: (1) Mr. and Mrs.
Harden had purportedly agreed to settle their differences in consideration of the
sum of %5,000 paid by Mr. Harden to Mrs.Harden, and a monthly pension of
P500 to be paid by him to her: (2) Mr. Harden had created a trust fund of$20,000
from which said monthly pension of $500 would be taken: and (3) Mr. and Mrs.
Harden had mutually released and forever discharged each other from all actions,
debts, duties, accounts, demands and claims to the conjugal partnership, in
consideration of the sum of $1. It was further asserted, in the manifestation that

1
the purpose of the said instruments executed by Mr. and Mrs. Harden, was to
defeat the claim of theformer for attorney’s fees, for which reason, he prayed in
his aforementioned motion the continuance of the receive to hold the properties
in question and for the reception of the evidence by a commissioner-referee to
determine the amount of fees due to him. Despite objection from Esperanza and
Fred, the court granted the motion and the Commissioner finally recommended
that Atty. Claro M. Recto be paid the equivalent amount of $20,000 of Esperanza
P. de Harden’s share of the conjugal properties or the sum of P369,410.10 as his
contingent fee for services rendered in her behalf which recommendation was
approved by the court.
From the said action of the court, Esperanza and Fred appealed to SC wherein
they assail the validity of the Contract of Professional Services. One of their
contentions is that, the contract in question has for its purpose to secure a decree
of divorce, allegedly in violation of Articles 1305, 1352 and 1409 of the Civil Code
of the Philippines.
ISSUE: Whether or not the Contract of Professional Services (CPS) is void.
RULING: NO. The contention that the contract is in violation of Articles 1304,
1352 and 1409 of the Civil Code of the Philippines is not tenable. It is not borne
out either by the language of the contract between them or by the intent of the
parties thereto. Its purpose was not to secure a divorce or to facilitate or promote
the procurement of a divorce. It merely sought to protect the interest of Mrs.
Harden in the conjugal partnership, during the pendency of a divorce suit she
intended to file in the United States. What is more, inasmuch as Mr. And Mrs.
Harden are admittedly citizens of the United States, their status and the
dissolution thereof are governed - pursuant to Article 9 of the Civil Code of Spain
(which was in force in the Philippines at the time ofthe execution of the contract
in question) and Article 15 of the Civil Code of the Philippines - by the laws of the
United States, which sanction divorce. In short, the contract of services, between
Mrs. Harden and Atty. Rectos not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public
order or public policy.
SUMMARY: Recto was hired by American wife to represent her in RP case for
protection of her interest in theconjugal property, vs. American husband, in
conjunction with the divorce proceeding she's going to file in US.They won in TC,
but on appeal, American H & W agreed to settle. Recto now wants to collect fees
for services, but as defense, Harden spouses argues that the contract's object was
unlawful (Divorce not allowed in RP)so it is invalid, thus, Recto cannot enforce it
against them. Court ruled for Recto
FACTS:  Mrs. Harden, US Citizen, engaged services of Claro M. Recto, for suit to
secure an increase in the amount of support she was receiving, to preserve her
rights in the properties of the conjugal partnership, in contemplation of a divorce
suit she's going to file in the US.  Compensation for RECTO: 20% of value of her
share of conjugal partnership after liquidation  The TRIAL COURT rendered a
decision in favor of Mrs. Harden  On Appeal to the CA: Harden Sps. Mutually
released and forever discharged each other from all actions, debts, duties, and
claims to the conjugal partnership  Recto filed motion contesting agreement 
defense: contract of services invalid: to secure a divorce decree in violation of our
laws
ISSUE:  WON RECTO COULD ENFORCE THE AGREEMENT?

2
RULING:  YES, CONTRACT OF SERVICES IS NOT CONTRARY TO LAW, MORALS,
GOOD CUSTOMS, PUBLIC ORDER, OR PUBLIC POLICY.  The contract has a lawful
object: it is to protect the interests of Mrs. Harden in the conjugal partnership
during the pendency of a divorce suit, NOT to secure divorce, to facilitate or
promote procurement of divorce  Divorce can be granted to the Sps Harden,
they being nationals of country whose laws allow divorce (following the
nationality principle in determining the status and dissolution of the marriage)