private respondent never pretended to claim them as his own. In fact private respondent filed a Manifestation and Motion in court on March 7, 1989 to be allowed to surrender the checks in his possession for disposition by the court in accordance with the fee arrangement between him and petitioner.xi[11] Although the said Manifestation and Motion was opposed by petitioner and eventually denied by the court, we are convinced that private respondent did not cause the diversion of said checks to his benefit. WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is hereby DENIED, and the decision of respondent Court of Appeals is hereby AFFIRMED, insofar as it upheld the trial courts ad of an additional US$2,500.00 and dismissed the counterclaim, but is MODIFIED in that the attorneys fees awarded in favor of private respondent in the sum of P 10,000.00 is hereby DELETED. SO ORDERED. Romero (Chairman), Vitug, Panganiban, and Purisima., JJ., concur. i[1] Rollo, p. 55. ii[2] Penned by Justice Justo P. Torres, Jr. (retired Supreme Court Associate Justice) and concurred in by Justice Vicente V. Mendoza and Justice Bernardo P. Pardo, (now both Associate Justices of the Supreme Court), Rollo, p. 38. iii[3] Rollo, p. 41. iv[4] Atlantic Gulf and Pacific Company of Manila, Inc. vs. CA, 247 SCRA 606. v[5] Rollo, pp. 36-37. vi[6] 242 SCRA 393. vii[7] New Testament Church of God vs. CA, 246 SCRA 266. viii[8] P.T. Cerna Corporation vs. CA, 221 SCRA 19. ix[9] Exhibits 8 to 8-C. x[10] Saba vs. CA, 189 SCRA 50; PNB vs. CA, 159 SCRA 433. xi[11] pp 30-31, Records.