Scribd
Upload
224 views2 pages

Albano v. Coloma

Coloma represented Albano and his mother in a civil case during the Japanese occupation. After liberation, Albano accused Coloma of failing to expedite the case and hired another lawyer, while Coloma intervened to collect attorney's fees. Albano denied agreeing to pay Coloma a contingent fee from any damages recovered. However, the court ruled that Coloma was entitled to full payment for her legal services. The court condemned attempts by clients to avoid paying attorney's fees after benefiting from their representation. Therefore, the petition against Coloma was dismissed.

Uploaded by

Maguindanao Assessors League
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
224 views2 pages

Albano v. Coloma

Coloma represented Albano and his mother in a civil case during the Japanese occupation. After liberation, Albano accused Coloma of failing to expedite the case and hired another lawyer, while Coloma intervened to collect attorney's fees. Albano denied agreeing to pay Coloma a contingent fee from any damages recovered. However, the court ruled that Coloma was entitled to full payment for her legal services. The court condemned attempts by clients to avoid paying attorney's fees after benefiting from their representation. Therefore, the petition against Coloma was dismissed.

Uploaded by

Maguindanao Assessors League
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Albano v.

Coloma
21 SCRA 411

FERNANDO, J.:

FACTS:

Complainant Angel Albano filed a disbarment case against Atty.


Perpetua Perpetua Coloma. In his letter complaint, Albano alleged that
during the Japanese occupation he and his mother retained the services of
respondent as counsel for them as plaintiff’s in a civil case. After which came
the accusation that after liberation and long after the courts had been
reorganized, Coloma failed to expedite the hearing and termination of the
case, as a result of which they had themselves represented by another
lawyer. This notwithstanding, it was claimed that Coloma intervened in the
case to collect attorney’s fees. It was then alleged that during the hearing,
they were surprised when Coloma presented in exhibit a document showing
that they as well as their co-plaintiffs in the case promised to pay her a
contingent fee of whatever could be recovered in damages.

There was a specific denial of the allegation that Albano was "a victim
of injustice," while Coloma alleging that the same was "untrue, unfounded
and imaginary."

Hence, this petition.

Issue:

Whether or not Coloma is entitled to full recompense for his services.

Ruling:

Coloma is entitled to full recompense for his services.

Counsel, any counsel, who is worthy of his hire, is entitled to be fully


recompensed for his services. With his capital consisting solely of his brains
and with his skill, acquired at tremendous cost not only in money but in the
expenditure of time and energy, he is entitled to the protection of any judicial
tribunal against any attempt on the part of a client to escape payment of his
fees. It is indeed ironic if after putting forth the best that is in him to secure
justice for the party he represents, he himself would not get his due. Such an
eventuality this Court is determined to avoid. It views with disapproval any
and every effort of those benefited by counsel's services to deprive him of
his hard-earned honorarium. Such an attitude deserves condemnation.
The Solicitor General could thus rightfully assert that if there was
anyone guilty of bad faith in this case "it is complainant and his co-plaintiffs
in Civil Case No. 4147 who, after benefiting from the valuable services of
respondent in said case, tried to renege on their agreement for the payment
of the latter's contingent attorney's fees by dismissing her as their counsel
after she had already won for them said case in the trial court and the Court
of Appeals, and later, by attempting to impugn the authenticity and
genuineness of their written agreement for the payment of attorney's fees,

Therefore, the petition is dismissed.

You might also like