RE: Letter of the UP Law Faculty entitled Restoring

Integrity: A Statement by the Faculty of the

University of the Philippines College of Law on the
Allegations of Plagiarism and Misrepresentation in
the Supreme Court
A.M. NO. 10-10-4-SC. JUNE 7, 2011
 In their motion for reconsideration,
respondents pray that (a) the
court's decision dated march 8,
2011 be reconsidered and set
aside and the respondents'
compliance dated november 18,
2010 be deemed satisfactory, and
(b) the court expunge the
FACTS reference in A.M. No. 10-7-17-SC to
the respondents (i.E., "Joined by
some faculty members of the
university of the philippines school
of law") effectively finding them
guilty of making false charges
against associate justice mariano
C. Del castillo (justice del castillo).
Ament the First Ground

 Professors Catindig and Laforteza insist that, notwithstanding the docketing of this
matter as an administrative case, there was purportedly a finding that respondents
were guilty of indirect contempt in view of (1) the mention made in the Show Cause
Resolution dated October 19, 2010 ofIn re Kelly, 5 a case involving a contempt
charge; and (2) the references to respondents' "contumacious language" or
"contumacious speech and conduct" and to several authorities which dealt with
contempt proceedings in the Decision dated March 8, 2011
 . It is true that contumacious speech and conduct directed against the
courts done by any person, whether or not a member of the Bar, may be
considered as indirect contempt under Rule 71, Section 3 of the Rules of
Court
 The very same contumacious speech or conduct directed against a court
or judicial officer, if committed by a member of the Bar, may likewise
subject the offender to disciplinary proceedings under the Code of
Professional Responsibility, which prescribes that lawyers observe and
promote due respect for the courts.7 In such disciplinary cases, the
sanctions are not penal but administrative such as, disbarment,
suspension, reprimand or admonition
 Contrary to Professors Catindig and Laforteza's theory, what established
jurisprudence tells us is that the same incident of contumacious speech
and/or behavior directed against the Court on the part of a lawyer may
be punishable either as contempt or an ethical violation, or both in the
discretion of the Court
 WHETHER OR NOT
CONTUMACIOUS SPEECH
AND/OR BEHAVIOR
DIRECTED AGAINST THE
COURT ON THE PART OF A

ISSUE LAWYER MAY BE

PUNISHABLE EITHER AS
CONTEMPT OR AN ETHICAL
VIOLATION, OR BOTH IN THE
DISCRETION OF THE COURT.
 YES. CONTUMACIOUS
SPEECH AND/OR
BEHAVIOR DIRECTED
AGAINST THE COURT ON
THE PART OF A LAWYER
HELD MAY BE
PUNISHABLE EITHER AS
CONTEMPT OR AN
ETHICAL VIOLATION, OR
BOTH IN THE DISCRETION
OF THE COURT
 when the Court initiates contempt proceedings and/or disciplinary proceedings
against lawyers for intemperate and discourteous language and behavior directed at
the courts, the evil sought to be prevented is the same — the degradation of the
courts and the loss of trust in the administration of justice
 For this reason, it is not unusual for the Court to cite authorities on bar discipline
(involving the duty to give due respect to the courts) in contempt cases against
lawyers and vice versa
 Thus, when the Court chooses to institute an administrative case against a
respondent lawyer, the mere citation or discussion in the orders or decision
in the administrative case of jurisprudence involving contempt
proceedings does not transform the action from a disciplinary proceeding
to one for contempt
 Respondents' contrary position in their motion for reconsideration is bereft
of any rational merit. Had this Court opted to cite respondents for
contempt of court, which is punishable by imprisonment or fine, this Court
would have initiated contempt proceedings in accordance with the Rules
of Court. Clearly, the Court did not opt to do so
With respect to the Second Ground

 With respect to the second ground offered for reconsideration of the Decision dated
March 8, 2011, respondents continue to insist on their theory, previously expounded in
their Compliance, that the evidence and proceedings in A.M. No. 10-7-17-SC was
relevant to their own administrative case and thus; it was necessary for them to be
granted access to the evidence and records of that case in order to prove their own
defenses in the present case. The Decision already debunked at length the theory that
if respondents are able to prove the bases for their "well founded" concerns regarding
the plagiarism charge against Justice Del Castillo, then they would be exonerated of
the administrative charges against them. It bears repeating here that what respondents
have been required to explain was their contumacious, intemperate and irresponsible
language and/or conduct in the issuance of the Restoring Integrity Statement, which
most certainly cannot be justified by a belief, well-founded or not, that Justice Del
Castillo and/or his legal researcher committed plagiarism
 In all, the Court finds that respondent Professors Catindig and Laforteza
have offered no substantial arguments to warrant a reconsideration of the
Decision dated March 8, 2011 nor to justify the grant of the reliefs prayed
for in their motion
ROMEO G. ROXAS and SANTIAGO N.
PASTOR, petitioners, vs. ANTONIO DE
ZUZUARREGUI, JR., ENRIQUE DE ZUZUARREGUI,
PACITA JAVIER, ELIZABETH R. GONZALES, JOSEFINA
R. DAZA, ELIAS REYES, NATIVIDAD REYES, TERESITA
REYES, JOSE REYES and ANTONIO REYES
[G.R. NO. 152104. JANUARY 31, 2006
 The instant cases had their beginnings in 1977 when the National Housing Authority (NHA) filed
expropriation proceedings against the Zuzuarreguis
 the Zuzuarreguis engaged the legal services of Attys. Romeo G. Roxas and Santiago N. Pastor,
to represent them in Civil Case No. 26804. This was sealed by a Letter-Agreement dated 22
April 1983.
 A Motion to Set Case for Hearing was filed by Attys. Roxas and Pastor praying that the case be
revived and be set for hearing by the court at the earliest date available in its calendar.
 The appropriate proceedings thereafter ensued Partial Decision was rendered fixing the just
compensation to be paid to the Zuzuarreguis at P30.00 per square meter
 The NHA filed a Motion for Reconsideration
 Pending resolution thereof, a Joint Special Power of Attorney was executed by Antonio De
Zuzuarregui, Jr., Enrique De Zuzuarregui and Pacita Javier, in favor of Attys. Roxas and Pastor
 A Letter-Agreement was executed by and between Antonio Zuzuarregui, Jr., Pacita Javier
and Enrique De Zuzuarregui, on the one hand, and Attys. Romeo G. Roxas and Santiago
Pastor, on the other. The said Letter-Agreement contains terms and condition such as:
 We hereby confirm and agree that we are willing to accept as final and complete settlement for
our 179 hectares expropriated by NHA a price of SEVENTEEN PESOS (P17.00) per square meter, or
for a total of THIRTY MILLION FOUR HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P30.4 Million), all payable in NHA
Bonds
 We also agree and confirm that for and in consideration of your services as our lawyers and
counsels in the said expropriation case, we commit and bind ourselves to pay to you, your heirs or
assignees-in-interest, as your contingent attorney's fees any and all amount in excess of the
SEVENTEEN PESOS (P17.00) per square meter payable in NHA bonds as mentioned above
 Resolution was issued by the NHA stating that the Zuzuarregui property would be acquired at a
cost of P19.50 per square meter; that the Zuzuarreguis would be paid in NHA Bonds, subject to the
availability of funds; and that the yield on the bonds to be paid to the Zuzuarreguis shall be based
on the Central Bank rate at the time of payment.
 NHA Legal Department, through Atty. Jose B. H. Pedrosa, released to Atty. Romeo G. Roxas, in
behalf of the Zuzuarreguis, the amount of P20,000,000.00 in NHA Bearer Bonds as "partial payment
for several parcels of land
 Zuzuarreguis issued a receipt for receiving the amount of P30,070,000.00. This receipt included the
P15,000,000.00 given to them last 27 December 1985. Again on 17 February 1986, the Zuzuarreguis,
through Beatriz Zuzuarregui vda. De Reyes, issued another receipt for the amount of P450,000.00 in
NHA bonds
 The total amount in NHA bonds released to Atty. Romeo G. Roxas in behalf of the Zuzuarreguis
amounted to P54,500,000.00. Out of this amount, the records show that the amount turned over to
the Zuzuarreguis by Atty. Roxas amounted to P30,520,000.00 in NHA bonds
 RTC dismissed the complaint
 CA REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Defendants-Appellees Roxas and Pastor are
hereby ordered to return to plaintiffs-appellants the amount of
P12,596,696.425, the balance from the P17,073,122.70, received as yield
from NHA bonds after deducting the reasonable attorney's fees in the
amount of P4,476,426.275
 Hence petition
 WHETHER OR NOT THE
LETTER-AGREEMENT
DATED 10 DECEMBER
1985, EXECUTED BY THE
ZUZUARREGUIS, AND
ATTYS. ROXAS AND
PASTOR, FIXING THE
ISSUE EXACT AMOUNT THAT
MUST GO TO THE
FORMER, SHOULD
STAND AS LAW BETWEEN
THE PARTIES
HELD

 Supreme Court sustain the decision Court of Appeals, but with modification in the
computation.
 Under Article 1318 of the Civil Code, there are three essential requisites which must concur in
order to give rise to a binding contract: (1) consent of the contracting parties; (2) object
certain which is the subject matter of the contract; and (3) cause of the obligation which is
established.
 All these requisites were present in the execution of the Letter-Agreement
 It is basic that a contract is the law between the parties. Obligations arising from contracts
have the force of law between the contracting parties and should be complied with in good
faith. Unless the stipulations in a contract are contrary to law, morals, good customs, public
order or public policy, the same are binding as between the parties
 Under the contract in question, Attys. Roxas and Pastor are to receive contingent fees for their
professional services. It is a deeply-rooted rule that contingent fees are not per se prohibited by
law. They are sanctioned by Canon 13 of the Canons of Professional Ethics
 However, in cases where contingent fees are sanctioned by law, the same should be
reasonable under all the circumstances of the case, and should always be subject to the
supervision of a court, as to its reasonableness, such that under Canon 20 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, a lawyer is tasked to charge only fair and reasonable fees.
 Indubitably entwined with the lawyer's duty to charge only reasonable fees is the power
of this Court to reduce the amount of attorney's fees if the same is excessive and
unconscionable
 Attorney's fees are unconscionable if they affront one's sense of justice, decency or
reasonableness. It becomes axiomatic therefore, that power to determine the
reasonableness or the, unconscionable character of attorney's fees stipulated by the
parties is a matter falling within the regulatory prerogative of the courts
 In the instant case, Attys. Roxas and Pastor received an amount which was equal to forty-
four percent (44%) of the just compensation paid (including the yield on the bonds) by the
NHA to the Zuzuarreguis, or an amount equivalent to P23,980,000.00 of the P54,500,000.00.
Considering that there was no full blown hearing in the expropriation case, ending as it did
in a Compromise Agreement, the 44% is, undeniably, unconscionable and excessive under
the circumstances. Its reduction is, therefore, in order. This is in accordance with our ruling
in the earlier case of Tanhueco v. De Dumo 51 , where we reduced the amount of
attorney's fees from sixty percent (60%) to fifteen percent (15%), for being excessive and
unreasonable
 The Zuzuarreguis are entitled to the yield equal to 87.18% of the P19,583,878.00, while Attys.
Roxas and Pastor are entitled to 12.82% of said amount. The amount corresponding to
87.17% of P19,583,878.00 is P17,073,224.84. This is the yield that the Zuzuarreguis are entitled
to. Attys. Roxas and Pastor, on the other hand, are entitled to P2,510,653.16