A Study on the

Guidelines and the Absence of Caps Imposed on

Contingency Fees on

Professional Services of Lawyers

_______________________________

A Term Paper

Submitted to:

Atty. Carlo Vincent E. Gimena

___________________________

In Partial Fulfillment of

Requirements for the

Degree of Juris Doctor

LAW 126:

Legal and Judicial Ethics

________________________________

Submitted by:

Lea Gabrielle M. Fariola

Section:

M7
 Table of contents

Introduction

The Practice of Law 1

Compensation for Legal Services 2

What is a Contingency Fee and Is It Prohibited by Law 2

Significance of the Study 5

Background

Types of Attorney’s Fees 7

Regulation of Contingency Fees 8

Discussion

Limitations 10

Reasonableness 11

Effects of Client’s Acceptance 13

Conclusion 14

Recommendation 16

Bibliography 17

Curriculum Vitae 19
 INTRODUCTION

The Practice of Law

The practice of law means, as provided by jurisprudence, is any activity, in or

out of court, which requires the application of law, legal procedure, knowledge,

training and experience. In the landmark case of Cayetano v. Monsod, the court cited

Black’s Law Dictionary in defining what the practice of law means, “The rendition of

services requiring the knowledge and the application of legal principles and technique

to serve the interest of another with his consent. It is not limited to appearing in court,

or advising and assisting in the conduct of litigation, but embraces the preparation of

pleadings, and other papers incident to actions and special proceedings,

conveyancing, the preparation of legal instruments of all kinds, and the giving of all

legal advice to clients. It embraces all advice to clients and all actions taken for them

in matters connected with the law. An attorney engages in the practice of law by

maintaining an office where he is held out to be an attorney, using a letterhead

describing himself as an attorney, counseling clients in legal matters, negotiating with

opposing counsel about pending litigation, and fixing and collecting fees for services

rendered by his associate.”

People would usually associate what a lawyer does to litigation in court or in

the conduct of case which, however is not the case, since the practice of law also

embraces the preparation of pleading and other papers related to proceedings and

actions in behalf of clients and conveying them before judges and courts.

Also, there is also an engagement in the practice of law when a lawyer holds

himself out to the public and demands compensation for services such as, but not

limited to:

1
 a. Opinions which involves the sharing of legal knowledge in relation to an

interpretation of a law or a ruling to a person seeking for such knowledge;

b. Appearances which involves the physical representation of a lawyer in

behalf of a client in proceedings before the court, quasi-judicial or

administrative bodies; and

c. Preparation of pleadings and contracts.

Compensation for Legal Services

In Lacson vs. Reyes, there were standards cited as to the reasonableness of

the amount to be collected for a lawyer’s services. These are the standards:

1. That the amount must be reasonable and have bearing on the case;

2. The extent of the services rendered;

3. The professional standing of the lawyer; and

4. Always subject to the moderating hand of the courts.

Reasonableness has always been the key term when talking about payment to

a lawyer. Attorney’s fees are even defined as the reasonable compensation paid to a

lawyer for the legal services he has rendered to the client.

What is a Contingency Fee and Is it prohibited by Law

Before understanding what a contingency fee is, what must be understood

first is a Contingent contract – an agreement whereby the fee, usually a fixed

percentage of what may be recovered, is made to depend on the success of the action.

Contingent contracts include therein the contingent fee between the client and the

lawyer. Such contingency fees are valid in our jurisdiction.

2
 Article 1491 of the Civil Code item number five (5) states that:

The following persons cannot acquire by purchase, even at a public or

judicial auction, either in person or through the mediation of another:

(5) Justices, judges, prosecuting attorneys, clerks of superior and inferior courts, and

other officers and employees connected with the administration of justice, the

property and rights in litigation or levied upon an execution before the court within

whose jurisdiction or territory they exercise their respective functions; this prohibition

includes the act of acquiring by assignment and shall apply to lawyers, with respect to

the property and rights which may be the object of any litigation in which they may

take part by virtue of their profession;

….

In the provision, there now comes a question if the agreement between a

client and a lawyer stipulating a contingent fee is included in such prohibition. The

court ruled in Fabillo v. IAC that no it is not within the ambit of such article. The

reason thereof is the time as to when the payment will be made. Payment between the

parties – the client and the lawyer- is done not during the pendency of the case but

only after the judgement on the subject case is rendered.

Contingency fee and some rules regarding its application are even mentioned

in Canon 13 of the Canons of Professional Ethics and Canon 20 Rule 20.01 of the

Code of Professional Conduct.

“Contingent fees. A contract for a contingent fee, where sanctioned by law,

should be reasonable under all the circumstances of the case including the risk and

uncertainty of the compensation, but should always be subject to the supervision of a

3
court, as to its reasonableness,” is provided in Canon 13 of the Canons of

Professional Ethics.

“A lawyer shall be guided by the following factors in determining his fees:

(a) the time spent and the extent of the service rendered or required;

(b) the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved;

(c) The importance of the subject matter;

(d) The skill demanded;

(e) The probability of losing other employment as a result of acceptance of the

proffered case;

(f) The customary charges for similar services and the schedule of fees of the

IBP chapter to which he belongs;

(g) The amount involved in the controversy and the benefits resulting to the

client from the service;

(h) The contingency or certainty of compensation;

(i) The character of the employment, whether occasional or established; and

(j) The professional standing of the lawyer,” is provided in Canon 20 Rule

20.01 of the Code of Professional Conduct.

The reason as to the why Contingent Fees are allowed in our jurisdiction has

been cited in many decided cases, discussed in detail in Rayos v. Atty. Hernandez,

that they are permitted because they redound to the benefit of the poor client

especially in cases where the client has a meritorious cause of action but could not

afford the services of a legal counsel. Basically, this is a means for the poor and the

helpless in order for their rights to be vindicated.

4
 Since contingent fees are allowed in our laws, the problem now arises as to

up to how much can a lawyer and client agree upon; specifically, how high can the

percentage go before it shall be considered to be unreasonable.

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

Contingent fee contracts are often created by the lawyer and the client when the

subject case involves property or a sum of money. Contingent fees are often used by lawyers

when their clients cannot afford their legal fees.

Since there are no guidelines imposed on the percentage as to how the contingent

fees are to be imposed, aside from reasonableness, there has always been the problem on

whether or not the agreed upon percentage is too high.

In the case of Rayos v. Hernandez, the respondent claimed that he charged the client

forty per cent (40%) of the total amount awarded to the petitioner. This was ruled by the court

as grossly excessive and unconscionable and was reduced to thirty-five per cent (35%).

In the case of Cortez v. Atty. Cortes, the petitioners proposition was grounded on the

Labor Code. Article 111, Book III of the Code states that “It shall be unlawful for any person

to demand or accept, in any judicial or administrative proceedings for the recovery of wages,

attorney’s fees which exceed ten percent of the amount of wages recovered,” and poised that

the respondent is in violation of this provision for charging 50% as contingent fee. The IBP

Commission on Discipline ruled that the 50% imposition is indeed excessive; however, it did

not agree that the 10% limitation in that provision shall apply in this case citing Masmud v.

NLRC which explains the two types of attorney’s fees – in the ordinary sense and in the

extraordinary concept. The commission stated that the proposition cannot accepted since, to

their words, “Article 111 of the Labor Code deals with the extraordinary concept of attorney’s

fees. It regulates the amount recoverable as attorney's fees in the nature of damages sustained

5
by and awarded to the prevailing party. It may not be used as the standard in fixing the

amount payable to the lawyer by his client for the legal services he rendered.” The fees

involved in this case, the contingency fee, is in the ordinary sense since it is merely a

compensation for the services rendered by the respondent to the complainant.

In this case, it was the petitioner who alleged that they had a handshake agreement

on a contingent fee of 12% which was denied by the respondent saying that the only thing

agreed upon is the fact that his service was engaged by complainant to pursue labor claims.

The lawyer even pointed out that a fifty-fifty sharing is not unconscionably high because he

gave the complainant the option to hire other lawyers, but chose him instead. The court

however believed that 50% is indeed excessive and, thus, reached to a decision of reducing

the contingency fee to 12% which is deemed to be the reasonable worth of the legal services

rendered.

In the case of Aquino v. Casabar, the petitioner and the lawyer in this case verbally

agreed to contract for contingent fees equivalent to thirty per cent (30%) of the increase of the

just compensation awarded. The Court deemed it fit that fifteen and not thirty per cent should

be the rate used to get the amount of attorney’s fees.

Using the three cases, we can say that the percentage used for contingent fees is on a

case-to-case basis and there are no standards or guidelines as to how much would be

considered to be reasonable, but only the criteria that it must not be excessive or

unconscionable.

In our jurisprudence, such issue is faced not only with regard contingent fees but

also for other civil concerns such as when the Usury Law was no longer in effect; that the

imposition of interest is no longer limited by an express provision of law but also of

judgement that it must not be shocking to the conscience of men or not unconscionable.

6
 BACKGROUND

Types of Attorney’s Fees

Unlike in other profession where there are standards set for specific services,

the practice of law does not come in standard or uniform rates. The fee for legal

services may depend upon, but not limited to:

a. The number of hours rendered by the lawyer and the scope of work they

would be required to accomplish;

b. The difficulty and nature of the case; and

c. The financial capacity of the client.

The most common lawyer fee is the Consultation Fee which is charged for

the inquiry of professional analysis of a case or even just a situation. This phase where

the client consults with the lawyer is important since this will be the time that latter

will assess if he is fit to handle the case. It will also be the time that the lawyer will

assess how much time, effort, money and other resources are needed plus the

probability of winning. Consultation is usually based on an hourly rate or by

consultation; some would even offer it for free.

Another type is the Acceptance Fee and as the name suggests, it is the fee for

simply accepting the case. The reason behind this fee is that once the lawyer accepts

the case, he misses the chance to accept other cases and could mean sacrificing a

potential client. According to YKC Law, only a handful charge this one.

Retainer Fee is also another type. As the name suggests also, this is the fee

that would make sure that the lawyer who once represented you, will be available for

you for as long as you need him. This comes in two types; a general retainer and a

7
special retainer. Most companies would incur the general retainer fee especially those

who do not have or only has a small-sized legal department. The legal services

usually involved in this type of the arrangement are the general tasks needed by the

company such as drafting of contracts, board resolutions, recording the minutes of the

meeting, and the like. The specialized retainer fee, on the other hand, usually costs

higher since in this arrangement, specific tasks are demanded by the client.

Another common type is the Contingency Fee. According to YKC Law,

lawyers who usually agree to this fee are those who are confident enough of their

skills and capabilities. This agreement is for the benefit of those who could not afford

the services of a lawyer. In this arrangement, the lawyer gets a certain percentage if

the client gets a favorable judgement and risks not getting any in case he fails to win

the case.

Initial fees and fees paid in the progress of litigation are not part of contingent

fees. In the case of Law firm of Raymundo Armovit v. CA, it was stated that just

because the client has incurred a substantial amount in the initial fees does not justify

that he won’t pay the agreed upon contingency fee; the two are independent from each

other.

Regulation of Contingency Fees

When talking about the practice of law, in general, the Constitution provides

that the Supreme Court has the exclusive power. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines

is a State-Organized Bar to unify the entire lawyer population. The power of the

Integrated bar comes from the Supreme Courts power, as provided in Section 13,

Article VIII of the 1935 Constitution, to promulgate rules concerning pleading,

practice and procedure in all courts and the admission to the practice of law.

8
Primarily, the integrated Bar is designed to improve the position of the Bar as an

instrumentality of justice and the Rule of Law; that the most important purpose of the

Bar is to assist in the administration of justice.

In relation therewith, the different IBP Chapters are the ones responsible in

publishing the different schedules or matrix of the Standard Minimum Attorney’s

Fees.

In a joint resolution of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Cebu Province and Cebu

City Chapters, it adopted the 2018 Standard Minimum Attorney’s Fees Schedule. The

resolution adopted the standard minimum fees on services related to: consultation and

retainership, simple documents, contracts or agreements, corporation and partnership,

acceptance fees which depend on whether the case is civil, criminal administrative or

a special proceeding and as to the court where such case was filed; may it be in the

Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court and Municipal Trial Court in

Cities, Regional Trial Court, Court of Appeals or Court of Tax Appeals, Supreme

Court, Sandiganbayan or quasi-judicial agencies exercising their original or appellate

functions. There are also standards set on Appearance Fees before the courts, before

labor agencies or offices, before the Ombudsman and the DOJ Prosecution office,

before administrative agencies and other engagement fees.

Jurisprudence also provides that the Courts have an important role to play

when it comes to Contingent Fees. In Radiowealth Finance Corp. v. ICB, it was held

that the courts can reduce or modify the attorney’s fees if they are unconscionable or

if it is unreasonable, the court may review the same. That duty of the courts was also

upheld in Licudan v. CA; it was stated that they must guard against the charging of

unconscionable and excessive fees by lawyers for their services when engaged as

counsel.

9
 DISCUSSION

The last paragraph of Article 2208 of the New Civil Code under Actual or

Compensatory Damages states that in all cases, the attorney’s fees and expenses of

litigation must be reasonable. This, so far, is the main guiding principle upon

contingent fees.

Limitations

As a general rule, Contingent Fees agreed to by the client and the lawyer are

allowed. As held in Aquino v. Casabar, the Courts are not just responsible for keeping

an eye and making sure that a lawyer acts in a proper and lawful manner, but also for

making sure that the lawyer is paid his just fees. The contingent fee is somewhat a

way in order to achieve such duty; however, it is subject to certain limitations.

The first one involves a champertous contact. It is an agreement whereby the

lawyer agrees to pay the expenses of the proceedings to enforce the client’s rights.

Such arrangement is not allowed because it is believed to be against public policy.

Canon 42 of the Code of Professional Ethics provides that a lawyer may not properly

agree with a client to pay or bear the expenses of the litigation and a champertous

contract is in violation of such canon. In the case of Bautista v. Gonzales where the

agreement between the lawyer and client involves a 50% contingent fee provided that

the lawyer defrays all expenses for the suit including the court fees. This agreement

was held by the court to be null and void for being champertous. This decision will

still be held even if the lawyer acted in good faith in advancing the expenses of the

10
litigation; if such is the case, the expenses shall be subject to reimbursement by the

client.

Another limitation is when the contingent fee agreed upon would tantamount

to giving the property to the lawyer as in the case of Licudan v. CA where the subject

land that is ought to be recovered has an area of 121 square and the contingency is to

be a usufruct of the 91.5 square meters of such land. This agreement was deemed to

be excessive and the court held that it shall never happen that the victor of the

litigation loses everything to his lawyer.

Reasonableness

Article 2208 of the Civil Code provides that attorney’s fees and the like shall

at all times be reasonable. Regarding contingent fee, such rule was even upheld in the

above-mentioned IBP Joint Resolution on adopting the Standard Minimum Attorney’s

Fee Schedule stating that a contract for contingent fee, where sanctioned by law,

should be reasonable under all circumstances of the case including the risk and

uncertainty of the compensation, but should always be subject to the supervision of

the Court, as to its reasonableness. Meaning, the issue on whether the requirement that

a contingent fee must be reasonable is met will lie on the hands of the courts.

Before going directly to contingent fees, what must be known first are the

factors that would be taken into consideration in determining the reasonableness of

attorney’s fees in general. In Lorenzo v. CA, they are as follows: the amount and

character of the services rendered; the nature and importance of the litigation or

business in which the services were rendered; the responsibility imposed; the amount

of money or the value of the property affected by the controversy or involved in the

employment; the skill and experience called for in the performance of the services;

11
the professional character and social standing of the attorney; the results secured,

among others. These factors were taken from Section 24 of Rule 138 of the Rules of

Court which talks about the compensation of attorneys and the agreement as to fees.

“An attorney shall be entitled to have and recover from his client no more

than a reasonable compensation for his services, with a view to the importance of the

subject matter of the controversy, the extent of the services rendered, and the

professional standing of the attorney. No court shall be bound by the opinion of

attorneys as expert witnesses as to the proper compensation, but may disregard such

testimony and base its conclusion on its own professional knowledge. A written

contract for services shall control the amount to be paid therefor unless found by the

court to be unconscionable or unreasonable.”

The means of how to determine the reasonableness of attorney’s fees is a

question of law. In such cases, the principle of quantum meruit is applied where the

court will rule that the lawyer will be entitled to receive what he merits for his

services as much as he has earned.

In Metrobank v. CA, in fixing a reasonable compensation for services

rendered by a lawyer on the basis of quantum meruit, the elements to be considered

are:

1. the importance of the subject matter in controversy;

2. the extent of the services rendered; and

3. the professional standing of the lawyer.

These elements are not exclusive but are only as additional inputs to rulings

in decided cases. In case that all such elements are met, it will give the lawyer

opportunity to produce evidence that he is rightful to receive his demanded attorney’s

fees and the petitioner a chance to refute the same. The court further added in this

12
case the principle behind reasonableness. That the Law should not be seen as a means

for yielding profit. The compensation is merely a simple reward for job done or a

service rendered. It is impressed with public interest that is why it must be subject to

State regulation.

The determination of attorney’s fee on the basis of quantum meruit has for its

purpose the prevention of a client from running away from his obligation after gaining

the fruits of the case brought about by the rendered legal services. On the part of the

attorney, this is also a mechanism in order to avoid unjust enrichment. The lawyer

must show that he is indeed entitled to reasonable compensation for the efforts that he

has exerted in defending his client’s cause. In the case of Villarama c. De Jesus, Atty.

De Jesus wanted to claim the entire success fee, but the Court ruled that he is only

entitled to fifty per cent (50%) since the goal, which is to transfer the subject party to

the petitioner’s name was not achieved. Basing on his effort and the legal services he

has provided to the petitioner, what was considered to be reasonable is only half of

what has been agreed upon.

In Aquino v. Casabar, the reason behind the ruling is that the agreement

between the petitioner and the attorney was done verbally and a contract for

contingent fees is an agreement in writing. Contingent fees depend upon an express

contract, and since there was no express contract in this case, the attorney can only

recover on the basis of quantum meruit. Because of the fact that the contract was

made verbally, there is now no evidence to justify the 30% contingent fee. Basing on

quantum meruit on the account of the service rendered by the attorney, the court held

that the rate of 15% is reasonable.

Effect of Client’s Acceptance

13
 If a contingent fee is declared to be unconscionable, it will not be mitigated

by the fact the client did not dispute the fee arrangement as held in a New Jersey case.

Here, a law firm has a common practice of charging forty-five percent (45%) fee and

has said that such practice has been approved by judges in a couple dozen cases. In

the retainer agreement, it was provided that the fee shall be a contingent fee of 45% or

a fee based on the firm’s hourly rate, whichever is greater. The court ruled that the fee

is unconscionable and unreasonable. Such decision was made even though the client

did not dispute the arrangement.

This could somewhat be related to disciplinary proceedings against a lawyer.

That even if the private complainants withdraws their complaints, the proceeding will

still push through. This is for the reason that disciplinary actions do not just concern

the private complainant but the public and the legal profession as well. As in

contingent fees, the practice of law must always carry with it public interest and the

courts cannot allow that the public be charged with excessive fees for legal services. It

will always be held by the courts that the earning element in the practice of law is

only secondary in nature and only next to the primary purpose which is public service.

CONCLUSION

The purpose of Contingency Fees is to try to bring together the interests of

both the client and the lawyer. Such arrangement gives the lawyer the higher incentive

to do a good job giving a sense of security to the client that he will likely receive

better representation. Many would say that such mechanism paves access to justice

for the individuals who would not be able to access to representation even if they have

a strong cause of action. In the United States, the most common percentage is used on

such fees is 30%. However, anti-contingency fee groups continue to implement caps

14
on the fees that lawyers charge. What they fail to discern is that the imposition of caps

prevents smaller cases from being taken. That if, for example, a 10%-cap is imposed,

lawyers will tend to choose cases involving larger amount and would tend to avoid

smaller ones. This would now contradict the main purpose of a contingent fee.

There will be a tendency that a lawyer will impose more than what is

reasonable. Not always, but it is possible that he will be charging more than what his

legal services are worth. And since there no specific laws that imposes the standard

rate for contingent fees, a lawyer is free to charge how much he would want to. It

would be helpful if certain guidelines, in addition to the requirement of

reasonableness, are imposed.

It has already been established on how the contingent fee be agreed upon;

that there be an express contract. But there is still a lack of guidelines as to how much.

The source of the decision is usually previously decided cases. Since the courts

usually regulate the fees in relation to the type of action and the amount of recovery,

what could be done is to create classes of action with the corresponding range of

amounts involved and from the groups created, percentages shall be assigned. It will

not be easy since there is an unlimited possibility of causes of action; but it might be

possible to create classes of actions that have already been brought to court before.

Even American jurisdiction is not unanimous on the calculation of the

contingent fee. They would go back and forth on the net amount of recovery or the

gross amount of recovery as basis. But in Texas, they implement a rule that the lawyer

will only be entitled to receive the specified fee up to the extent the client receives

payment. Here, it is made sure that the negative would not be left with a negative

balance so they use the net recovery as basis.

15
 Going back to main purpose of the contingent fee – which redounds to the

benefit of the poor and the helpless, the rule on making sure that the client be made

only to pay up to the extent of what he receives is in line with such purpose.

RECOMMENDATION

From the conclusion, it is recommended that:

 Causes of action involving Contingency Fees are to be listed;

 Such causes of action are to be grouped together as to nature;

 In each cause of action, the amounts involved shall be recorded;

 A class containing a cause of action plus a range of the amount involved shall

be formulated; and

 Discern a suggested percentage to be assigned to every class created.

16
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books
Albano, E. S., Albano II, E. A., Albano-Pua, M. A., & Albano III, E. A. (2018). Legal
and Judicial Ethics (Bar Reviewer) (2018 ed.). Central Books Supply, Inc.
Aquino, D. C., & Buenaventura, R. U. (2017). Legal Profession. Central Books
Supply, Inc.

Cases
Augusto Aquino v. Hon. Ismael Casabar, et al; G.R. No. 191470, January 26, 2015
Alberto Lacson, et al v. Hon. Luis R. Reyes, et al; G.R. No. 86250, February 26, 1990
Angel Bautista v. Ramon Gonzales; A.M. No. 1625, February 12, 1990
Eugenio Cortez v. Atty. Hernando Cortes; A.C. No. 9119, March 12, 2018
Florencio Fabillo, et al v. Intermediate Appellate Court et al; G.R. No. L-68838,
March 11, 1991
Francisco Rayos v. Atty. Ponciano Hernandez; G.R. No. 169079; February 12, 2007
Law Firm of Raymundo Armovit v. Court of Appeals, et al; G.R. No 154559, October
5, 2011
Radiowealth Finance Co., Inc., et al v. International Corporate bank, et al; G.R. No.
77042-43, February 28, 1990
Ramon Villarama v. Atty. Clodualdo De Jesus; G.R. No. 217004, April 17, 2017
Renato Cayetano v. Christian Monsod, et al.; G.R. No. 100113, September 3, 1991
Severo Lorenzo v. Court of Appeals; G.R. No. 85383, August 30, 1990
Wilfredo Licudan, et al v. Court of Appeals; G.R. No. 91958, January 24, 1991

17
Government Websites
Book III – Conditions of employment. (2014, December 11). Bureau of Labor
Relations. https://blr.dole.gov.ph/2014/12/11/book-iii-conditions-of-employment/
Kwa-Zulu Natal Law Society. https://www.lawsoc.co.za/upload/files/Contingency

Virtual Law Library

ChanRobles and Associates Law Firm: Home of ChanRobles Virtual Law Library:
chanrobles.com - chanrobles.com.ph. https://www.chanrobles.com
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. https://lawphil.net.html

Journals/ Periodicals/ Manuals

Contingency fees. (n.d.). Consumer Attorneys of California.
https://www.caoc.org/index.cfm?pg=contingencyfees
Contingent fee. (n.d.). Law Library - American Law and Legal Information - JRank
Articles. https://law.jrank.org/pages/5678/Contingent-Fee.html
How does a legal retainer in Manila, Philippines work? (2019, September 9). Yap
Kung Ching & Associates Law. https://www.ykclaw.ph/how-does-a-legal-retainer-in-
manila-philippines-work/

18
 CURRICULUM VITAE

Name: Lea Gabrielle M. Fariola, CPA

Address: Bacayan, Cebu City, Cebu 6000

Birthplace: Cebu City, Philippines

Birthdate: September 27, 1995

Status: Single

Parents: Leah M. Fariola

: Amado M. Fariola

Sisters: Lea Dominique M. Fariola

: Lea Alexandra M. Fariola

Email address: gabriellian27@gmail.com

Education:

Elementary : Bantayan Central Elementary School

Batch Valedictorian

2002-2008 Ticad, Bantayan, Cebu 6052

Secondary : Bantayan Science High School

Batch Valedictorian

2008-2012 Ticad, Bantayan, Cebu 6052

Undergraduate : University of San Carlos – Downtown Campus

Bachelor of Science in Management Accounting

Magna Cum Laude

2012-2016 P. Del Rosario, Cebu City, Cebu 6000

19
 : University of Cebu – Banilad

Bachelor of Science in Accountancy

2016 – 2017 Banilad, Cebu City, Cebu 6000

Graduate : University of Cebu – Banilad

Juris Doctor School of Law

2019-Present

Work experience: Financial Analyst

Flexi Finance Asia, Inc.

June 2018 – June 2019

: Accounting Instructor

ACLC College of Mandaue

2019-Present

20