Source: https://ja.scribd.com/document/366654396/Second-Div-Navrez-vs-Abrogar-III-2015
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 23:56:46+00:00

Document:
EDMUNDO NAVAREZ, Petitioner, v. ATTY. MANUEL ABROGAR III, Respondent.
Appearance Fee: P2,500.00 per Court hearing or administrative meetings and/or other meetings.
of his deceased wife less Atty. Abrogar's cash advances.
remaining proceedings for the settlement of the estate of Avelina Quesada-Navarez.
previously refused in August 2008.
ChanRoblesVirtualawl ibra ry On February 18. 2009. On January 21.675. 2010) in the Resolution dated July 26. In his Comment dated September 8. the petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration. This Court granted both motions for extension totaling thirty (30) days (or until May 5. 2010.000. 2009. 2010. He maintains his argument that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion because: (1) it granted Atty.000. the contents of the petition show that it is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. On April 6. The petitioner moved for reconsideration which the CA denied in a Resolution dated March 12. Atty. 2008. 2009. 2009. Abrogar's claim for attorney's fees despite non-payment of docket fees. (2) it granted the claim for attorney's fees without requiring a fullblown trial and without considering his advance payments. 2010.R. The petitioner also points out that the CA nullified the RTC's release order in CA-G. 2010. The petitioner elevated the case to the CA via a petition for certiorari. That the attorney's lien of Manuel Abrogar III conformably with the Retainer Agreement dated July 30. it is hereby ordered: 1. That the prayers for P100.00 as exemplary damages. 2007. 108734. cralawlawlibra ry 3. 2009.00 to the movant. SP No.05 to Manuel Abrogar III.chan robles law OUR RULING . the CA dismissed the petition and held that the RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion. Atty. 2008.3 THE PETITION The petitioner argues that the CA gravely erred in dismissing his petition for certiorari that challenged the RTC ruling ordering the payment of attorney's fees. The Order reads: chanRo blesvi rtua lLawl ib rary WHEREFORE. and April 26. Abrogar's attorney's fees. That the oppositor pay the administrative costs/expenses of P103.196.5% of P11. 2009 Decision. 2010. cralawlawl ibra ry 2. and (3) the RTC issued a writ of execution even before the lapse of the reglementary period. Abrogar's claim for attorney's fees despite lack of jurisdiction due to non-payment of docket fees. On March 17.00 as moral damages and for writ of preliminary attachment be denied. premises considered." However. P200. Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.000. the petitioner filed the present petition entitled "Petition for Review. In its decision dated October 16. Abrogar adopted the CA's position in its October 16. be entered into the records of this case in consonance with Section 37. That oppositor Edmundo Navarez pay the amount of 7. Section 37 of the Rules of Court. the RTC denied the motion for reconsideration and issued a Writ of Execution of its Order dated January 21. SO ORDERED. On May 5.On October 7. the motion was submitted for resolution without oral arguments. (2) the RTC denied him the opportunity of a full-blown trial to contradict Atty. the petitioner filed his first and second motions for extension of time to file his petition for review. Abrogar filed a Motion to Enter into the Records his attorney's lien pursuant to Rule 138. Abrogar's claims and prove advance payments. the RTC issued an order granting the motion and directed the petitioner to pay Atty. and (3) it issued the writ of execution before the lapse of the reglementary period. On November 21. and 4. He argued that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion because: (1) the RTC granted Atty. 2010.
15 As in every action for a sum of money.16 this Court granted certiorari and annulled the decision of the trial court granting a "motion for attorney's fees" because the attorney did not pay the docket fees. A special civil action for certiorari is a remedy of last resort.14 The enforcement of the lien.11 The proper procedure for the court is to ascertain the proper amount of the lien in a full dress trial before it orders the registration of the charging lien. However. Therefore. Atty. The RTC acted with grave abuse of discretion because it denied the petitioner his right to be heard. He did not pay any docket fees because he had not yet asked the RTC to enforce his lien. the filing of the statement of the claim does not.5 this Court has. in the spirit of liberality that pervades the Rules of Court4 and in the interest of substantial justice. the enforcement of a charging lien can only take place after a final money judgment has been . the remaining issue is whether or not the CA erred when it held that the RTC acted within its jurisdiction and did not commit grave abuse of discretion when it ordered the payment of attorney's fees. Abrogar only moved for the registration of his lien. With the procedural issue out of the way.13 In the present case. on appropriate occasions. The registration of the lien should also be distinguished from the enforcement of the lien. Under this situation. the attorney-movant must first pay the prescribed docket fees before the trial court can acquire jurisdiction to order the payment of attorney's fees.6 (2) the petition avers errors of judgment. the RTC enforced the lien and ordered the petitioner to pay Atty. treated a petition for certiorari as a petition for review on certiorari. As a security for his fees. Lastly.7 and (3) when there is sufficient reason to justify the relaxation of the rules. Abrogar's lien without a hearing even though the client contested the amount of the lien. the right to due process.12 The necessity of a hearing is obvious and beyond dispute. In this case. i. the attorney must have caused: (1) a statement of his claim to be entered in the record of the case while the court has jurisdiction over the case and before the full satisfaction of the judgment. Rule 138. whether separate or an offshoot of a pending proceeding. speedy. on the other hand. We find merit in the petition. a motion for the enforcement of the lien is in the nature of an action commenced by a lawyer against his clients for attorney's fees. the RTC had not yet acquired jurisdiction to enforce the charging lien because the docket fees had not been paid. In Lacson v. For the lien to be enforceable. The payment of docket fees is mandatory in all actions. both the attorney and the client have a right to be heard and to present evidence in support of their claims.9 and (2) a written notice of his claim to be delivered to his client and to the adverse party. Section 37 of the Rules of Court grants an attorney an equitable right to a charging lien over money judgments he has secured in litigation for his client.We observe that the petitioner used the wrong remedy to challenge the CA's decision and resolution. and adequate remedy under the law. However. the RTC ordered the registration of Atty. The petitioner filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65.10 In these cases. this Court deems it proper to treat the present petition for certiorari as a petition for review on certiorari in order to serve the higher ends of justice. Docket fees must be paid before a court can lawfully act on a case and grant relief. Nonetheless.8 Considering that the present petition was filed within the extension period granted by this Court and avers errors of law and judgment.. legally determine the amount of the claim when the client disputes the amount or claims that the amount has been paid. The enforcement of the lien is a claim for attorney's fees that may be prosecuted in the very action where the attorney rendered his services or in a separate action. The petitioner had the right to be heard and to present evidence on the true amount of the charging lien. However. can only take place once a final money judgment has been secured in favor of the client. Reyes. An attorney has a right to be paid a fair and reasonable compensation for the services he has rendered to a client. particularly when: (1) the petition for certiorari was filed within the reglementary period to file a petition for review on certiorari. by itself.e. Abrogar's attorney's fees and administrative expenses. not a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. Registration merely determines the birth of the lien. the RTC acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction when it ordered the payment of the attorney's fees. available only to raise jurisdictional issues when there is no appeal or any other plain.
335 Phil.18 Under Rule 39. 92.R. this decision should not be construed as imposing unnecessary burden on the lawyer in collecting his just fees.. 256 (1997). and the decision of the Regional Trial Court. p. 1991. Delsan Transport Lines. (Chairperson). Thus. 1066-1067. 379 Phil. p. JJ. before the lapse of the reglementary period. Court of Appeals. Atty. Hon. 6 Republic v. Equitable 8 .R. 232. 2009. The execution of a final order issues as a matter of right upon the expiration of the reglementary period if no appeal has been perfected. 1075 (1997). as in the exercise of any other right conferred by law. or even just the perception. the CA nullified the "award" to which the RTC attached the attorney's lien as there was nothing due to the petitioner. Clearly.19 The RTC ordered execution without satisfying the requisites that would have justified discretionary execution. see rollo. 4 Rules of Court. Del Castillo. rollo. Execution was improper because the enforceability of the lien is contingent on a final and executory award of money to the client. December 11. 715 SCRA 182. The RTC's issuance of a writ of execution before the lapse of the reglementary period to appeal from its order is likewise premature. 1 and 3. Tagle v. Q-05-59112 is hereby ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. Garcia. SO ORDERED. 12. Abrogar had not moved for execution and there were no good reasons to justify the immediate execution of the RTC's order. SP No. G. SP No. No. Endnotes: 1 Petition. chanroblesvi rtua llawli bra ry Carpio.R. premises considered. of abuse or prejudice. Court of Appeals. Metropolitan Manila Authority. v. Discretionary execution may only issue upon good reasons to be stated in a special order after due hearing. 12. v. Court of Appeals. Inc. is an order that finally disposes of the issue on the amount of attorney's fees Atty. Mendoza. we hereby GRANT the petition. §6. no money judgment was as yet due to the client to which the lien could have attached itself. the lawyer .R. 3 Petition. 98 (2000). 204 SCRA 837. 175273. Branch 83. 108675 dated October 16. discretionary execution can only be made before the expiration of the reglementary period upon a motion of the prevailing party with notice to the adverse party. 4 February 2014. The Order of the RTC dated January 21. enforcement of the lien is premature. the RTC gravely abused its discretion when it ordered the execution of its order dated January 21. Grecia-Cuerdo. Proc. Eternal Gardens Memorial Park Corp. The RTC again abused its discretion in this respect because it prematurely enforced the lien and issued a writ of execution even before the main case became final. 5 People v. 581 Phil. 108734. 477 (2008) citing Solicitor General v.and the courts -must avail of the proper legal remedies and observe the procedural rules to prevent the possibility. concur. Romualdez.20 WHEREFORE. No. But. Abrogar is entitled to. Section 2 of the Rules of Court. 2 Penned by Associate Justice Portia Alino-Hormachuelos and concurred in by Associate Justices Fernanda Lampas Peralta and Ramon R. 2009. For these reasons. Quezon City in Sp. 7 City of Manila v. Until the money judgment has become final and executory. This Court notes that in CA-G. No. this Court finds that the CA erred when it held that the RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion and acted without jurisdiction. The decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G. 462.17 The lien only attaches to the money judgment due to the client and is contingent on the final determination of the main case. and Leonen. p. 347 Phil. 3. 2009. As our last word. enforcement of the lien was premature. 102782. Rule 1. pp. is hereby REVERSED.rendered in favor of the client. G.
Court of Appeals. 419 (1954). Cañizares. 15 Lacson v. 669 (1975). 169 Phil 287. Hidalgo. G. 566 (1960). G. Inc. v. 707 (1928). 20 Phil. §2 of the Rules of Court. 23 January 1990. v. 403 (2008). Oaminal v. 12 Integrated Construction Services. v. Hon. Court of Appeals. 876.A. Sps. 672. supra note 13. Court of Appeals. Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank v. Reyes. 114 Phil. 17 Metropolitan Bank & Trust Co. 19 Rule 39. 20 Supra note 13. 11 Candelario v. . 384. 51 Phil. 677 (1962). 294 (1977). 107 Phil. Vina. 261 Phil. Court of Appeals. Palanca v. 575 Phil. Henares. 160 Phil. v. 654. §1 of the Rules of Court. Relova. 881 (1990). 644 (2000). Pecson. 542. 323 (1911). 18 Rule 39. 16 Id.PCI Bank. 94 Phil. 13 376. 14 Bacolod Murcia Milling Company.R. 459 Phil. 9 10 Dahlke v. 86100-03. De la Peña v. Machineries. Inc. 181 SCRA 367. v. 389 Phil. 560. Metropolitan Bank & Trust Co. id. No. Inc. Castillo. 556 (2003).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 §6
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 §2
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 §1
 v. 
 v. 
 v.