In Civil Case No. Q-23186, lawyer Senen Ceniza, who successfully handled for petitioner Civil Case No. 5957 involving property worth P95,000.00, sued the latter before the Court of First Instance for payment of P60,000.00 as attorney’s fees. As affirmative defense, petitioner alleged that she never engaged the services of Atty. Ceniza. The trial court, whose decision was sustained by the Court of Appeals, ruled that there was indeed a lawyer-client relationship between the litigants and rendered judgment ordering petitioner to pay plaintiff’s widow, herein private respondent who substituted him after his death, the amount of P35,000.00 as attorney s fees plus interest in Civil Case No. 5957, and P3,500.00 as attorney’s fees and cost of the suit in Civil Case No. Q-23186.

On petition for review, the Supreme Court affirmed the factual findings of both the trial court and the Court of Appeals as to the lawyer-client relationship between the parties. The Court, however, pronounced as excessive and unreasonable the amounts awarded by the lower courts and reduced the same to P14,250.00 or 15% of the market value of the subject property in Civil Case No. 5957, and P1,500.00 in Civil Case No. Q-23186.

Assailed judgment, modified.

1. REMEDIAL LAW; CERTIORARI; FACTUAL FINDINGS OF TRIAL COURT AND COURT OF APPEALS; GENERALLY NOT DISTURBED ON REVIEW; CASE AT BAR. — Where both the trial court and the Court of Appeals found that there was indeed a lawyer-client relationship between two persons, the Supreme Court will not disturb this factual finding.

2. LEGAL ETHICS; ATTORNEY’S FEES; AWARD OF; REDUCTION THEREOF IS WARRANTED WHERE THE SAME IS EXCESSIVE AND UNREASONABLE; CASE AT BAR. — Where it appears that the property which was the subject of the litigation handled by counsel had at the time of the suit a market value of P95,000.00, the award of 35,000.00 as attorney’s fees was declared excessive and unreasonable, and the same was reduced to the more reasonable amount of P14,250.00 or 15% of the market value of the property.

In Civil Case No. Q-23186 of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Senen S. Ceniza v. Beatriz de Zuzuarregui Vda. de Reyes, the plaintiff sought from the defendant the payment of P60,000.00 as attorney’s fees in connection with Civil Case No. 5957 of the Court of First Instance of Rizal which Ceniza handled for Mrs. Reyes, Civil Case No. 5957 where Mrs. Reyes was one of several defendants was dismissed by the trial court; a motion for reconsideration was denied; and an appeal to this Court by certiorari proved equally fruitless.

Before the CFI could render judgment in Civil Case No. Q-23186, Atty. Ceniza died. His widow, Antonia Rusca Vda. de Ceniza was substituted as plaintiff.

The affirmative defense of Mrs. Reyes in the trial court is that she never engaged the services of Atty. Ceniza in connection with Civil Case No. 5957. The trial court found that she did and gave judgment in favor of Mrs. Ceniza as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered ordering the defendant to pay plaintiff Antonia Rusca Vda. de Ceniza, who substituted her husband:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. The amount of P35,000 with interest thereon at the legal rate from the date of the filing of the instant complaint on May 19, 1977 until fully paid, and

2. The amount of P3,500.00 as reasonable attorney’s fee and costs of suit."cralaw virtua1aw library

Mrs. Reyes appealed to the Court of Appeals and that court rendered the following judgment:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"WHEREFORE, finding no reversible error in the appealed decision, We hereby AFFIRM the same, with costs against the appellant."cralaw virtua1aw library

We are now asked to review the decision of the Court of Appeals.

There are two principal issues in the present appeal, namely:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. Whether or not there was a lawyer-client relationship between Atty. Ceniza and Mrs. Reyes. Both the trial court and the Court of Appeals found that there was indeed a lawyer-client relationship between those two persons. We cannot disturb this factual finding.

2. The reasonable of the award for attorney’s fees. We can deal with this issue because the matter of attorney’s fees falls within the domain of the judiciary.

It appears that the property which was the subject of the litigation handled by Atty. Ceniza had at the time of the suit a market value of P95,000.00. In this light the award of P35,000.00 as attorney’s fees appears to be excessive and unreasonable. The amount of P14,250.00 or 15% of the market value of the property is more reasonable.

WHEREFORE, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is hereby modified: The petitioner shall pay to the private respondent the following: 1. P14,250.00 as attorney’s fees in Civil Case No. 5957 with interest at the legal rate from May 19. 1977 until fully paid; and 2. P1,500.00 as attorney’s fees in civil Case No. Q23186. Costs against the private Respondent.

SO ORDERED.

Barredo, (Chairman), Aquino, Concepcion, Jr., Guerrero, De Castro and Escolin, JJ., concur.