PALE 10.13 Corpus vs.

CA, 98 SCRA 424 (1980)

Facts: Corpus was charged administratively by several employee of the Central Bank Export Dept.
where he is the director. He was represented by Atty. Alvarez. After investigation, he was was
considered resigned by the then Governor of CB, Miguel Cuaderno, because he ahd lost confidence in
him.

Corpus filed a petition against Cuaderno and Mario Narcos who was appointed to his position. Judge
Lantin dismissed the case for failure to exhaust the administrative remedies.

Atty. David filed an MR under the joint signatures of Atty. Alvarez and Atty. David. It was denied. Then
he perfected the appeal before the SC. The SC reversed the order of dismissal adn remanded the
case for further proceedings. Corpus wrote Atty. David a letter attaching a check amounting to P2K as
a token of his appreciation for the services rendered. Atty. David returned the check explaining that
he was motivated by the value of their intimate relations, that it was not primarily for a professional
fee, that his appreciation is enough compensation already.

When Judge Lantin declared illegal the resolution removing Corpus from office and ordered his
reinstatement and payment of back salaries and allowances, Atty. David's law office made a formal de
command upon Corpus for collection of 50% of the amount recovered by Corpus as back salaries and
emoluments from CB. The lower court ordered Corpus to pay Atty. David P30K for professional fees.

Atty. David filed for the issuance of a writ of execution of the decision to which Judge Tecson directed
the garnisment of Corpus' bank deposits in Commercial Bank.

Issue: Whether Atty. David is entitled to attorney's fees

Held: Yes. Corpus' act of giving the P2K check indicates his commitment to pay which is stressed by his
statement wishing he could give more. The statement constitutes as a promise to pay upon his
reinstatement and reimbursement of back salaries.

While there was no express contract between the parties for the payment of attorney's fees, the fact
remains that respondent David rendered legal services to petitioner Corpus and therefore as
aforestated, is entitled to compensation under the innominate contract of facio lit des And such being
the case, respondent David is entitled to a reasonable compensation.