Bachrach vs. Golingco, 39 Phil. 138
Subject: Obligations and Contracts
FACTS
On July 10, 1916,
Golingco executed a promissory note in favor of Bachrach for the sum of P8,750.
The note was secured by a chattel mortgage on an automobile truck. The note
matured on January 19, 1917. Golingco failed to pay the note when it matured.
Bachrach foreclosed the chattel mortgage and purchased the truck at the
foreclosure sale for P539. Bachrach then sued Golingco for the balance due on
the note, plus interest and attorney's fees.
The trial court found in
favor of Bachrach and awarded him the sum of P8,461, plus interest and
attorney's fees. Golingco appealed the decision to the Supreme Court.
ISSUE
Whether or not an express
written contract for fees between an attorney or his client, may the court
still disregard the contract.
RULING
Yes. An express written
contract for fees between an attorney or his client can be disregarded by the
court because a contract for attorney’s fees is different from other contracts.
It may be disregarded if the amount fixed is unconscionable or unreasonable,
considering the value of the work accomplished.
No comments:
Post a Comment