Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 66 views

    Case 33 - MASMUD V NLRC (Pia Angelica Diaz)

    Uploaded by

    Joycee Armillo
    Evangelina Masmud challenged the amount of attorney's fees claimed by Atty. Roland Go, Jr. for representing her late husband, Alexander, in a case against his employer for non-payment of employee benefits. Under their retainer agreement, Atty. Go would receive 20% of any award as well as an additional 10% if there was an appeal. While the case went through multiple appeals and Evangelina was substituted as complainant, she argued Atty. Go was only entitled to the 20% fee under the Labor Code. However, the court ruled the retainer agreement controlled and it was not unconscionable. It instructed that a reasonable fee be determined based on the contract terms and criteria for attorney compensation.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Case 33 - MASMUD V NLRC (Pia Angelica Diaz)

    Uploaded by

    Joycee Armillo
    66 views1 page
    Evangelina Masmud challenged the amount of attorney's fees claimed by Atty. Roland Go, Jr. for representing her late husband, Alexander, in a case against his employer for non-payment of employee benefits. Under their retainer agreement, Atty. Go would receive 20% of any award as well as an additional 10% if there was an appeal. While the case went through multiple appeals and Evangelina was substituted as complainant, she argued Atty. Go was only entitled to the 20% fee under the Labor Code. However, the court ruled the retainer agreement controlled and it was not unconscionable. It instructed that a reasonable fee be determined based on the contract terms and criteria for attorney compensation.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    Case 33 - MASMUD v NLRC (Pia Angelica Diaz)

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Evangelina Masmud challenged the amount of attorney's fees claimed by Atty. Roland Go, Jr. for representing her late husband, Alexander, in a case against his employer for non-payment of employee benefits. Under their retainer agreement, Atty. Go would receive 20% of any award as well as an additional 10% if there was an appeal. While the case went through multiple appeals and Evangelina was substituted as complainant, she argued Atty. Go was only entitled to the 20% fee under the Labor Code. However, the court ruled the retainer agreement controlled and it was not unconscionable. It instructed that a reasonable fee be determined based on the contract terms and criteria for attorney compensation.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    66 views1 page

    Case 33 - MASMUD V NLRC (Pia Angelica Diaz)

    Uploaded by

    Joycee Armillo
    Evangelina Masmud challenged the amount of attorney's fees claimed by Atty. Roland Go, Jr. for representing her late husband, Alexander, in a case against his employer for non-payment of employee benefits. Under their retainer agreement, Atty. Go would receive 20% of any award as well as an additional 10% if there was an appeal. While the case went through multiple appeals and Evangelina was substituted as complainant, she argued Atty. Go was only entitled to the 20% fee under the Labor Code. However, the court ruled the retainer agreement controlled and it was not unconscionable. It instructed that a reasonable fee be determined based on the contract terms and criteria for attorney compensation.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Pia Angelica Diaz

    EVANGELINA MASMUD v NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION & ATTY. ROLAND GO, JR.

    GR. No. 183385, February 13, 2009

    Facts:

    In 2003, Evangelina Masmud’s late husband, Alexander, filed a complaint against First Victory Shipping Services for non-
    payment of permanent disability benefits, medical expenses, sickness allowances, moral and exemplary damages, and
    attorney’s fees, with Atty. Go as his counsel. In consideration of Atty. Go’s legal services, Alexander agreed to pay
    attorney’s fees on a contingent basis, as follows: 20 % of total monetary claims as settled or paid and an additional 10 % in
    case of appeal. It was likewise agreed that any ward of attorney’s fees shall pertain to respondent’s law firm as
    compensation.

    The Labor Arbiter rendered a decision granting the monetary claims of Alexander. However Alexander’s employer filed an
    appeal with the NLRC. During the pendency of the proceedings before the NLRC, Alexander died thereafter Atty. Go
    substituted Evangelina as complainant. The NLRC denied the motion of the Alexander’s employer. On appeal before the
    Court of Appeals, the decision of the Labor Arbiter was affirmed with modification. Eventually, the decision of the NLRC
    became final and executor and Atty. Go moved for the execution of the NLRC decision, which was granted. The surety
    bond of the employer was garnished and Atty. Go moved for the release of the said amount to Evangelina. The Labor
    Arbiter directed the NLRC Cashier to release the amount of P 3, 454, 079. 20 to Evangelina and P 680,000.00 will go to
    Atty. Go. Dissatisfied, Atty. Go filed a motion to record an enforce attorney’s lien alleging that Evangelina reneged on their
    contingent fee agreement. Evangelina paid only the amount of P680,000.00, equivalent to 20% of the award as attorney’s
    fees, thus, leaving a balance of 10% pertaining to the counsel as attorney’s fees. Evangelina manifested that Atty. Go’s
    claim for attorney’s fees of 40% of the total monetary award was null and void based on Article 111 of the Labor Code is
    the law that should govern Atty. Go’s compensation as her counsel.

    Issue:

    Whether or not Atty. Go’s compensation is under the concept of attorney’s fees governed by Section 24, Rule 138 of the
    Rules of Court or under the extraordinary concept governed by Article 111 of the Labor Code.

    Ruling:

    Atty. Go’s compensation should be governed by Section 24, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court and not Article 111 of the Labor
    Code. The retainer contract between Atty. Go and Evangelina provides for a contingent fee. The contract shall control in
    the determination of the amount to be paid, unless found by the court to be unconscionable or unreasonable. Attorney's
    fees are unconscionable if they affront one's sense of justice, decency or reasonableness. The decree of unconscionability
    or unreasonableness of a stipulated amount in a contingent fee contract will not preclude recovery. It merely justifies the
    fixing by the court of a reasonable compensation for the lawyer's services. The criteria found in the Code of Professional
    Responsibility are also to be considered in assessing the proper amount of compensation that a lawyer should receive.

    You might also like