Singh vs. Corpus, Jr. and Corpus

A baseless and malicious disbarment complaint filed to coerce the return of a non-refundable acceptance fee may constitute malicious prosecution under Article 2219(8) of the Civil Code, and the lower courts' factual findings sustaining such liability are binding on the Supreme Court absent grave abuse of discretion or misappreciation of evidence; the damages awarded, however, must be reduced consistent with prevailing jurisprudence.

Petitioner Jose P. Singh was a defendant in Civil Case No. 07-09-3871, also entitled Platon vs. Aguinaldo IV, et al., involving a 5,309-square meter lot in Tanauan City, Batangas. Respondent Atty. Perfecto S. Corpus, Jr. is a private practitioner of 35 years and a former judge of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities in San Fernando, Pampanga. The parties entered into a retainer agreement for Atty. Corpus to serve as Singh's counsel in that civil case, with an acceptance fee of PHP 30,000.00. Article 2219(8) of the Civil Code allows moral damages in cases of malicious prosecution.

Respondents Spouses Perfecto S. Corpus, Jr. and Marlene S. Corpus filed a complaint for damages against petitioner Jose P. Singh. Atty. Corpus is a private practitioner of 35 years and a former judge of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities in San Fernando, Pampanga. Singh was a defendant in Civil Case No. 07-09-3871, also entitled Platon vs. Aguinaldo IV, et al., involving a 5,309-square meter lot in Tanauan City, Batangas. In May 2014, Singh met Atty. Corpus at Café Breton, Makati, and confided that he was inclined to discharge his counsel in that civil case, Atty. Gino Jacinto of Quicho and Angeles Law Offices, because the latter allegedly raised their attorney's fees without his concurrence. On June 9, 2014, Singh informed Atty. Corpus that he tried to communicate with Quicho and Angeles Law Offices but it was unresponsive. Singh then engaged Atty. Corpus as counsel in Civil Case No. 07-09-3871. They discussed the applicable laws and legal strategy, and Singh agreed to pay PHP 30,000.00 as acceptance fee. On June 11, 2014, Singh deposited the PHP 30,000.00 acceptance fee to Atty. Corpus's personal account.

On June 14, 2014, Atty. Corpus accompanied Singh to Canyon Woods Properties in Taal, Batangas, where they again discussed the civil case. Atty. Corpus inquired about the case records, but Singh told him they were still in the custody of Quicho and Angeles Law Offices. Singh later offered Atty. Corpus one of his houses in Canyon Woods, which the latter declined. By letter dated June 18, 2014, Singh asked Atty. Corpus to examine the sufficiency of a draft Secretary's Certificate and Special Power of Attorney relative to the civil case, which Atty. Corpus did. On June 20, 2014, Singh instructed Atty. Corpus to hold in abeyance all work in Civil Case No. 07-09-3871 and asked him instead to handle another case against the owners and residents of Canyon Woods. Atty. Corpus declined the offer due to its complexity.

In a letter dated June 30, 2014, Singh terminated their retainer agreement without explanation and demanded the return of the PHP 30,000.00 acceptance fee. Atty. Corpus replied that he agreed to terminate the retainer but not to return the acceptance fee, explaining that he had already commenced legal work by conducting an extensive study of the facts, related laws, and jurisprudence relative to Civil Case No. 07-09-3871 and had attended several meetings about the case. Thereafter, Singh sent another letter dated July 4, 2014, calling Atty. Corpus "immoral" for refusing to return the PHP 30,000.00 "entrusted money" despite not having rendered any service yet, and threatened to file a disbarment case if the amount remained unreturned by July 10, 2014. In his letter dated July 7, 2014, Atty. Corpus responded that the PHP 30,000.00 was not "entrusted money" but payment for his acceptance of the civil case, which he had already started working on. He also learned that when Singh terminated the services of his previous counsel at Quicho and Angeles Law Offices, Singh likewise instructed that counsel to return the PHP 30,000.00 acceptance fee, showing a habit of terminating counsel and demanding return of the acceptance fee. Atty. Corpus furnished a copy of his letter to Quicho and Angeles Law Offices and to Singh's wife, Adelia Singh.

Atty. Corpus later discovered that Singh made good his threat by filing a disbarment complaint against him, docketed as A.C. No. 10529. In that complaint, Singh imputed negligence to Atty. Corpus for his alleged failure to render any legal service in Civil Case No. 07-09-3871, and unethical conduct for (a) furnishing copies of his letter-reply to Quicho and Angeles Law Offices and Singh's wife, and (b) refusing to return the PHP 30,000.00 acceptance fee despite the termination of their retainer agreement. By Resolution dated March 5, 2018, the Court dismissed the disbarment complaint for lack of merit. The Court held that Singh failed to adduce sufficient evidence concerning Atty. Corpus's alleged infraction of the Lawyer's Oath and the then Code of Professional Responsibility. The Court also emphasized that the records did not show Atty. Corpus was impelled by any ulterior motive when he furnished copies of his letter-reply to Singh's wife and to Quicho and Angeles Law Offices, which was still considered as lead counsel in Civil Case No. CV-07-12-3871. As regards the acceptance fee, the Court adopted the report of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines-Commission on Bar Discipline that acceptance fee refers to the charge imposed by the lawyer for merely accepting the case; by accepting Civil Case No. 07-12-3871, Atty. Corpus incurred an opportunity cost since he was precluded from handling cases of the opposing party based on the prohibition against the conflict-of-interest rule. Thus, he did not commit any infraction when he failed to return the acceptance fee to Singh. The Court concluded that the duty of the Court towards members of the bar is not only limited to the administration of discipline to those found culpable of misconduct but also to the protection of the reputation of those frivolously or maliciously charged.

Atty. Corpus alleged that Singh fabricated a story of negligence for the sole purpose of coercing him to return the acceptance fee. The baseless disbarment case, he claimed, tarnished his reputation as a private practitioner for 35 years and as a former judge of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities in San Fernando, Pampanga. His law practice was negatively affected, as attested by his peers Atty. Cecil Fojas and Atty. Leonardo Aguilar, and his application for appointment as notary public was delayed. He prayed that Singh be held liable for damages. During the pre-trial conference on March 11, 2019, Singh and his counsel failed to appear despite notice, and the trial court allowed Atty. Corpus to present evidence ex parte. The lower courts found that Singh filed a baseless and malicious disbarment complaint meant to vex Atty. Corpus because the latter did not return the PHP 30,000.00 acceptance fee, and that Atty. Corpus had already performed some legal work as shown by their communications and meetings.

• Non-Refund of Acceptance Fee: Petitioner maintained that it was immoral for Atty. Corpus not to return the PHP 30,000.00 entrusted money although the latter never performed any legal work.
• Proof of Reputation Damage: Petitioner argued that none of Atty. Corpus's family members or clients testified to prove that his reputation had been damaged due to the disbarment complaint.
• Right to Litigate: Petitioner argued that the filing of the disbarment complaint against Atty. Corpus should not be deemed malicious prosecution because the law would not have meant to impose a penalty on the right to litigate.
• Wife's Liability: On appeal, petitioner argued that the act of malicious prosecution alleged in Atty. Corpus's complaint was imputed to Singh alone, so his wife, Adela, should not be held liable.

• Review of Factual Findings: Whether the issues raised by petitioner—concerning the allegedly unfounded, malicious, and baseless accusations in the disbarment complaint and the return of the PHP 30,000.00 acceptance fee—are purely factual and thus not cognizable by the Supreme Court absent grave abuse of discretion or misappreciation of evidence.
• Malicious Prosecution: Whether the lower courts correctly found petitioner Jose P. Singh liable for malicious prosecution for filing a baseless and malicious disbarment complaint against Atty. Perfecto S. Corpus, Jr.
• Damages: Whether the awards of moral damages, exemplary damages, attorney's fees, and cost of suit should be reduced pursuant to jurisprudence.

• Review of Factual Findings: No. The issues are purely factual and the Court is not a trier of facts; absent grave abuse of discretion or misappreciation of evidence, the concurrent factual findings of the lower courts are binding and conclusive.
• Malicious Prosecution: Yes. The lower courts' finding that Singh filed a baseless and malicious disbarment complaint, amounting to malicious prosecution, was affirmed; petitioner failed to show any special reason to warrant discretionary appellate jurisdiction.
• Damages: Modified. The awards of moral damages, exemplary damages, and attorney's fees were reduced to PHP 30,000.00, PHP 20,000.00, and PHP 10,000.00, respectively, pursuant to jurisprudence, while the PHP 17,360.00 cost of suit was retained, with 6% interest per annum from finality until fully paid.

• Review of Factual Findings: The Court held that the issues raised by Singh were a mere rehash of the same questions pertaining to the unfounded, malicious, and baseless accusations in the disbarment complaint and whether the PHP 30,000.00 acceptance fee should be returned. These issues are purely factual in nature, and the Supreme Court will not take cognizance of them because it is not a trier of facts. Absent any showing that the courts below committed grave abuse of discretion or otherwise misappreciated the evidence, their concurrent factual findings are binding and conclusive. Petitioner also failed to adduce any special reason to warrant the exercise of the Court's discretionary appellate jurisdiction.
• Malicious Prosecution: The Court affirmed the lower courts' finding that Singh filed a baseless and malicious disbarment complaint against Atty. Corpus. The Court of Appeals held that the complaint was meant to vex Atty. Corpus since the latter did not return the PHP 30,000.00 acceptance fee. Acceptance fee is generally non-refundable as it is not measured by the extent of the legal services rendered but seeks to compensate the lawyer for lost opportunity. Besides, Atty. Corpus already did some legal work for the case as shown in their communications and meetings. On account of malicious prosecution, the trial court correctly held Singh liable for moral damages under Article 2219(8) of the Civil Code, exemplary damages as vindication of Atty. Corpus's suffering and wanton invasion of his rights, as well as attorney's fees and cost of litigation.
• Damages: The Court reduced the award of damages pursuant to jurisprudence. In Spouses Co vs. Development Bank of the Philippines, the Court reduced the award of moral damages from PHP 100,000.00 to PHP 20,000.00, exemplary damages from PHP 100,000.00 to PHP 20,000.00, and attorney's fees from PHP 100,000.00 to PHP 10,000.00. In Sosmeña vs. Bonafe, et al., the Court found Sosmeña liable for malicious prosecution and reduced the damages awarded to Bonafe, et al. to PHP 30,000.00 as moral damages, PHP 20,000.00 as exemplary damages, and PHP 10,000.00 as attorney's fees. The Court likewise imposed a 6% interest per annum on these monetary awards. Thus, the damages granted to Atty. Corpus were reduced to PHP 30,000.00 as moral damages, PHP 20,000.00 as exemplary damages, and PHP 10,000.00 as attorney's fees. The payment of PHP 17,360.00 in favor of Atty. Corpus as cost of suit was retained. All monetary awards are subject to 6% interest per annum from finality of the Decision until fully paid.

• Malicious Prosecution — In this case, the filing of a baseless and malicious disbarment complaint, dismissed for lack of merit, was treated as malicious prosecution. The Court affirmed liability under Article 2219(8) of the Civil Code where the complaint was meant to vex or coerce the respondent into returning an acceptance fee.
• Acceptance Fee — Acceptance fee is a charge imposed by a lawyer for merely accepting the case. It is generally non-refundable as it is not measured by the extent of the legal services rendered but seeks to compensate the lawyer for lost opportunity. The Court adopted the Integrated Bar of the Philippines-Commission on Bar Discipline report and the Court of Appeals' holding on this point.
• Concurrent Factual Findings — The Supreme Court is not a trier of facts. Absent grave abuse of discretion or misappreciation of evidence, the concurrent factual findings of the lower courts are binding and conclusive. The Court applied this rule to decline review of the malicious prosecution finding and the issue of whether the acceptance fee should be returned.
• Damages for Malicious Prosecution — Moral damages may be recovered for malicious prosecution under Article 2219(8) of the Civil Code; exemplary damages may be awarded as vindication; and attorney's fees and costs may be recovered. The Court reduced the amounts awarded consistent with prevailing jurisprudence and imposed 6% interest per annum from finality until fully paid.

• "The issues raised here by Singh are a mere rehash of the same questions pertaining to the unfounded malicious and baseless accusations in the disbarment complaint he filed against Atty. Corpus, as well as the issue of whether to return the PHP 30,000.00 acceptance fee previously given to Atty. Corpus. These issues are purely factual in nature and the Court will not take cognizance of them since it is not a trier of facts." — This passage states the threshold ruling on the factual nature of the issues and the Supreme Court's limited appellate review.
• "In the absence of any showing that the courts below committed grave abuse of discretion or otherwise misappreciated the evidence, their concurrent factual findings are binding and conclusive upon the Court." — This passage articulates the standard for reviewing concurrent factual findings of the lower courts.
• "Acceptance fee, though, is generally non-refundable as it is not measured by the extent of the legal services rendered but seeks to compensate the lawyer for lost opportunity." — This passage defines the nature of an acceptance fee and supports the finding that Atty. Corpus did not commit an infraction in refusing to return it.
• "Thus, we reduce the damages granted to Atty. Corpus to PHP 30,000.00 as moral damages, PHP 20,000.00 as exemplary damages, and PHP 10,000.00 as attorney's fees. We retain the payment of PHP 17,360.00 in favor of Atty. Corpus as cost of suit. All monetary awards are subject to 6% interest per annum from finality of this Decision until fully paid." — This passage states the final modification of the damages awarded for malicious prosecution.

• Spouses Co vs. Development Bank of the Philippines, G.R. No. 139351, July 19, 2020 (Notice) Third Division — Cited by the Court to reduce awards for malicious prosecution: moral damages from PHP 100,000.00 to PHP 20,000.00, exemplary damages from PHP 100,000.00 to PHP 20,000.00, and attorney's fees from PHP 100,000.00 to PHP 10,000.00.
• Sosmeña vs. Bonafe, et al., 873 Phil. 500, 517 (2020) — Cited as jurisprudential basis for reducing damages in malicious prosecution to PHP 30,000.00 moral damages, PHP 20,000.00 exemplary damages, and PHP 10,000.00 attorney's fees, with 6% interest per annum.

• Article 2219(8), Civil Code — Moral damages may be recovered in cases of malicious prosecution. The Court affirmed the lower courts' award of moral damages under this provision for Singh's baseless and malicious disbarment complaint.
• Rule 45, Rules of Court — The petition was filed as a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45. The Court denied it in part because the issues raised were factual and did not warrant discretionary appellate review absent grave abuse of discretion.
• Lawyer's Oath and Code of Professional Responsibility — The disbarment complaint alleged infractions of these standards, but the Court dismissed it for lack of merit, finding no sufficient evidence of violation.

Leonen, SAJ. (Chairperson), J. Lopez, and Kho, Jr., JJ., concurred. M. Lopez was on official leave.