The Supreme Court Draws the Line: Legal Fees Must Be Just, Not Opportunistic

-

 The Supreme Court Draws the Line: Legal Fees Must Be Just, Not Opportunistic

A Closer Look at Notarial Fees in the Philippines

By Atty. Phil Juris

Introduction

In the legal profession, fees are not just a matter of compensation—they are a reflection of justice, fairness, and public trust. The Supreme Court of the Philippines has repeatedly emphasized that legal fees, including notarial fees, must be just and reasonable, not a means for opportunism or exploitation. This principle is especially relevant today, as the demand for notarial services grows alongside the digitalization of legal processes.

The Legal Framework: Regulating Notarial Fees

The Supreme Court, through the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, has set clear guidelines on the imposition of notarial fees. Notaries public are required to charge only up to the maximum fees prescribed by the Supreme Court, to issue official receipts, and to post a schedule of fees in a conspicuous place in their offices. The recent Rules on Electronic Notarization further reinforce these standards, ensuring that even in the digital age, notarial fees remain transparent and regulated.

Jurisprudence: The Supreme Court Speaks

The Supreme Court has not hesitated to intervene when legal or notarial fees become excessive or unconscionable. In Riguer v. Mateo, G.R. No. 222538 (2017), the Court reduced attorney’s fees from P250,000 to P100,000, finding the original amount nearly half the value of the property involved and thus unconscionable. The Court stressed that legal fees must be fair and proportionate to the service rendered.

Similarly, in Suelto v. Sison, G.R. No. 158130 (2005), the Court upheld the award of P100,000 as notarial fees, but only after determining that the amount was reasonable given the circumstances and the agreement between the parties.

Why Regulation Matters

Unregulated or opportunistic fees undermine public trust in the legal system. The Supreme Court’s insistence on reasonableness protects clients from exploitation and upholds the dignity of the legal profession. Notaries, as officers of the law, play a crucial role in this system of accountability.

Practical Implications for Notaries and Clients

  • Notaries must strictly adhere to the maximum fees set by the Supreme Court.
  • Receipts must be issued for all notarial acts, and a schedule of fees must be posted.
  • Clients who are charged excessive fees may file a complaint with the Executive Judge or the Supreme Court.
  • Agreements for higher fees must still pass the test of reasonableness and fairness.

The Supreme Court draws a clear line: legal and notarial fees must be just, reasonable, and transparent. Excessive or opportunistic fees are subject to reduction or disallowance, and notaries are required to comply with Supreme Court guidelines to protect the public and maintain the profession’s integrity. In the end, justice is not just about winning cases—it’s also about ensuring fairness in every aspect of legal practice, including the fees we charge and pay.

References

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

𝐄𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐨𝐦𝐢𝐜 𝐑𝐞𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐓𝐞𝐬𝐭.

-
Image
  𝐄𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐨𝐦𝐢𝐜 𝐑𝐞𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐓𝐞𝐬𝐭. [G.R. No. 189255 June 17, 2015]  "Aside from the control test, the Supreme Court has also used the economic reality test in determining whether an employer-employee relationship exists between the parties."  "Under this test, the economic realities prevailing within the activity or between the parties are examined, taking into consideration the [totality of circumstances] surrounding the true nature of the relationship between the parties." In Sevilla v. Court of Appeals, we observed the need to consider the existing economic conditions prevailing between the parties, in addition to the standard of right-of-control [...] to give a clearer picture in determining the existence of an employer-employee relationship based on an analysis of the totality of economic circumstances of the worker.  Thus, the determination of the relationship between employer and employee depends upon the circumstances of the whole economic activi...
Read more

SC applied the "economic dependency test" and ruled a Lazada delivery rider as a regular employee.

-
Image
  ANTECEDENTS   In February 2016, Chrisden Cabrera Ditiangkin, Hendrix Masamayor Molines,5 Harvey Mosquito Juanio, Joselito Castro Verde, and Brian Anthony Cubacub Nabong (collectively, riders) were hired as riders by Lazada E-Services Philippines, Inc. (Lazada). They were primarily tasked to pick up items from sellers and deliver them to Lazada's warehouse. Each of them signed an Independent Contractor Agreement (Contract) which states that they will be paid P1,200.00 per day as service fee. Respondents maintain that the Contract they signed with petitioners explicitly states that there is no employer-employee relationship between them. SC RULING   When the status of the employment is in dispute, the employer bears the burden to prove that the person whose service it pays for is an independent contractor rather than a regular employee with or without fixed terms. SPONSORED   Bar Q&A (2024 Ed.) Law Questions Criminal Commercial Civil Political Labor Taxation Ethi...
Read more

SUGGESTED ANSWERS TO 2023 BAR EXAMS ON CRIMINAL LAW

-
Image
  SUGGESTED ANSWERS TO 2023 BAR EXAMS ON CRIMINAL LAW BY JUDGE Marlo Campanilla 1. Court has jurisdiction - Extra-territoriality and generality principle ( 8-Hrs video Speed Lecture and regular review lecture )  2. Joey can invoke mistake of fact in relation of death under exceptional circumstance (last-minute video lecture, 8-hrs speed video lecture, pre-week video lecture, regular lecture) 3. Kidnapping with homicide , Ramos and Mercado principle (last-minute video lecture, pre-week video lecture, 8-hrs video speed lecture, regular lecture) 4. Aggravating circumstance of committing a crime in the present of the President; nighttime is not aggravating circumstance (Basic principle) 5. Ado is liable (Basic principle)   6. Pardon will not remit accessory penalty (8-hrs speed video lecture, pre-week video lecture, regular lecture) 7. The duration of reclusion perpetua is 40 years ( Miguel vs. Director of Bureau Prisons, UDK-15368, September 15, 2021 ) 8. Treason is...
Read more