Another Harry Potter spell? No. This is a concept in Civil Law which entitles someone who intervenes for another’s affairs to just compensation. Although good deeds cannot really be compensation otherwise it loses its meaning and essence but paying the negotiorum gestor also makes sure that the beneficiary is not unjustly enriched at the expense of the former. In our present world, good deeds have become less common that those caught on camera will become instant celebrities when their videos will become viral on facebook or YouTube. Our individualistic behaviour now have made do-gooders a rarity but our Civil Law encourages them through this concept of negotiorum gestio. There is a very old case involving a lawyer which demonstrates this concept- Rotea vs Delupio (G.R. No. L-45310, April 14, 1939)
Atty. Rotea
Birondo, a father of two minors, asked Atty. Rotea to pursue the filling of a case for the annulment of a deed of sale involving a certain parcel of land. The land was sold by the grandmother of the minors but she has no right to sell the property because the said minors own the property through inheritance. Indeed Rotea performed the task assigned to him by Birondo. Rotea obtained a court order annotating the right of retention of 1/3 of the property. The guardian of the minors opposed the annotation because Birondo did not have any authority to engage the services of Rotea on behalf of the minors. The court revised its earlier decision still annotating the right of retention of Rotea but without specifying the extent of the same. The lone issue is whether Rotea is entitled to the retention or compensation for his services.
Rotea is a Negotiorum Gestor
The Supreme Court upheld the right of Rotea to be compensated or retain a portion of the property. This despite the absence of authority of Birondo to engage the services of Rotea on behalf of the minors. The right of Rotea to be compensated proceeds from the concept of negotiorum gestio and not the engagement by Birondo to render legal services. The fact is, Rotea was able to obtain the property for the benefit of the minors even without their consent or authority. “It is indisputable that Simplicio Birondo by the mere fact that he is the father of said minors, has no right to enter into a contract with said attorney binding the properties of his said minor daughters. But even if there had been no such agreement and attorney Marcos J. Rotea, voluntarily taking interest in said minors, had defended their interests against the usurpation of their properties by their grandmother by taking, as he did, the necessary steps leading to that end for their benefit and achieving complete success, he nevertheless has the right, as a negotiorum gestor, to be indemnified for the necessary and useful expenses he had incurred and the damages he had suffered in the discharged of his duties as such gestor, it being immaterial that said minors or their guardian did not ratify his undertaking, in accordance with the provisions of article 1893 of the Civil Code and to have his lien as attorney noted.”
