If instead, Louie agrees to take the case upon Wendy’s promise to give him

the entire P500,000 meant for Cora, should he win the case but only
P25,000 should he lose, would this be correctly characterized as a
contingent fee?

When determining fees, a lawyer should keep in mind that the profession is a
branch of the administration of justice and not a mere profit-making trade.

Under the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability Canon III Section
41. Fair and reasonable fees. — A lawyer shall charge only fair and reasonable fees.

The movant stand that -the contract made by Wendy and Atty Louie is NOT BE
CORRECTLY CHARACTERIZED AS A CONTIGENT FEE.

Before we delve into the careful examination of the given case, let us first look on
the definition of Contingent Fee.

A contingent fee arrangement is an express contract between a lawyer and a client

in which the lawyer's professional fee is made to depend upon the success of the
litigation.

The requisites in order to collect contingent fee are the following:

(1) There must be an agreement in writing

(2) The amount is based on a fixed percentage

(3) The basis of this contingent fee is the result of the litigation.

In line with the requisites provided, the house stands that IT IS NOT
CHARACTERIZED AS CONTIGENT FEE.

AGREEMENT WAS NOT REDUCED IN WRITING;

Agreement between Atty. Louise and Wendy was not reduced in writing.

THE AMOUNT IS NOT BASED ON FIXED PERCENTAGE;

Granting arguendo that Wendy and Atty. Louise indeed entered into a contingent
fee contract promising to the latter the 500k of the subject legacy for Cora , the
agreement is nevertheless void.

In their account, Wendy promised to give the legacy of Cora and Atty. Louise
accepted the case and assumed the litigation expenses, without providing for
reimbursement, in exchange for a contingency fee consisting of the full
amount of the legacy. This agreement is not contingency fee but champertous
and is contrary to public policy.

In the case of Bautista v. Atty. Gonzales, there, the Court held that an
reimbursement of litigation expenses is against public policy, especially if the
lawyer has agreed to carry on the action at his expense in consideration of
some bargain to have a part of the thing in dispute.
In contingent fee arrangements, the lawyer gets paid based on the outcome of the
litigation. Because of the risk of not getting paid at all, lawyers tend to collect
between 30%-50% of whatever the client gets.

The 500k represents 100% of the subject amount in the litigation. This is excessive
because it is more than 50% of which the lawyer is allowed to collect. A violation
under the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability for lawyers.

BASIS OF THIS CONTINGENT FEE IS THE RESULT OF THE LITIGATION.

In the case of Cadavedo vs. Lacaya, Atty. Lacaya clearly stated that the spouses
Cadavedo hired the former on a contingency basis; the Spouses Cadavedo
undertook to pay their lawyer ₱2,000.00 as attorney’s fees should the case be
decided in their favor.

The Supreme Court held that his stipulation is not in the nature of a penalty that
the court would award the winning party, to be paid by the losing party. The
stipulation is a representation to the court concerning the agreement between the
spouses Cadavedo and Atty. Lacaya, on the latter’s compensation for his services in
the case; it is not the attorney’s fees in the nature of damages which the former
prays from the court as an incident to the main action.

In the same way, Although the stipulation made by Wendy and Atty. Louise for the
payment of contingency fee would defend on the result of the litigation, it is not
valid in this case. Wendy's commitment to deliver Cory's legacy to Atty.Louise if
the case wins does not encompass the attorney's fees in the form of damages that
the former seeks from the court as an incident to the main action.