Lizardo Sr vs Montano : 138882 : May 12, 2000 : J. Pardo : First Division

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 138882. May 12, 2000]

JOSE S. LIZARDO, SR., petitioner, vs. ATTY. CARMELITO A. MONTANO, respondent.

D E C I S I O N

PARDO, J.:

The case before the Court is an appeal from a decision of the Court of Appeals dismissing the petition instituted by petitioner for annulment of an order of execution requiring him to pay respondent attorney’s fees of 25% on the property and/or to direct the Register of Deeds of Marikina to annotate the attorney's lien on the title, notwithstanding the obvious merit of the petition invoking the ground that the lower court had lost jurisdiction over the case as the judgment had become final and indeed, had been executed more than ten years prior to the order to pay attorney’s fees and such order was a substantial variation of the final judgment. Scslx

On April 08, 1983, the Regional Trial Court, Kalookan City, Branch 125 in Civil Case No. C-9009, instituted by petitioner Jose S. Lizardo, Sr. against one Eddie H. Mirano, for collection of a sum of money, rendered decision in favor of petitioner, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows: Slxsc

"WHEREFORE, premises considered and pursuant to Sec. 1, Rule 19 of the Rules of Court, judgment is hereby rendered on the pleading and the defendant is ordered to pay the plaintiff as follows:

"(a) the sum of P19,893.95 as principal obligation plus 12% interest per annum from August 25, 1980 the date the obligation became due and demandable until fully paid;

"(b) the sum equivalent to 25% of the amount payable under paragraph (a) as attorney’s fees; and

"(c) costs of suit." (Emphasis supplied)

No appeal from the judgment was interposed in the case, and in time, the decision became final and executory. Slxmis

On October 24, 1985, the trial court issued a writ of execution of the judgment. In due course, the Deputy Sheriff of Kalookan City levied on a parcel of land, with an area of ten thousand square meters, registered in the names of spouses Edgardo H. Mirano and Adelina C. Ponce, situated in the municipality of Antipolo, province of Rizal, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 357965. In the consequent execution sale at public auction of the property, the sheriff sold the land to petitioner Lizardo as the highest bidder. His bid was in the amount of P44,2392.47, the full amount of the judgment debt of Eddie H. Mirano.[1]

On March 14, 1986, the trial court ordered the Register of Deeds of Marikina to consolidate the title to the property in petitioner's name, and on September 9, 1986, the Register of Deeds issued TCT No. 122925 in petitioner Lizardo's name.[2]

On January 5, 1996, thirteen (13) years after the case had been decided, and more than ten years after the judgment was fully satisfied, respondent Atty. Carmelito A. Montano who was the lawyer for petitioner, filed with the trial court an omnibus motion for payment of his attorney's fees. Without hearing petitioner, on January 29, 1996, the trial court, at this time presided over by Judge Geronimo S. Mangay issued an order directing petitioner to pay respondent attorney "the agreed attorney’s fees of 25% on the property and/or direct the Register of Deeds of Marikina to annotate the attorney's lien of 25% on TCT No. 122925 if plaintiff (herein petitioner) fails to pay the equivalent value to which Atty. Carmelito A. Montano is entitled to."[3]

On July 30, 1997, petitioner elevated the case to the Court of Appeals, filing an action to nullify the lower court's order directing petitioner to pay attorney's fees of respondent.[4]

On October 20, 1998, the Court of Appeals promulgated its decision dismissing the petition.[5]

Hence, this appeal via petition for review on certiorari.[6]

The basic issue raised is whether the Court of Appeals erred, as a matter of law, in ruling that the trial court still had jurisdiction over the case in 1996, when the respondent judge ordered petitioner to pay attorney's fees to respondent which was even at variance with the terms of the final judgment. Missdaa

We resolve the issue in favor of petitioner. The lower court no longer had jurisdiction over the case when it issued its order of January 29, 1996. Sdaadsc

Rewinding the facts, we note that:

On April 08, 1983, the trial court rendered decision on, the decretal portion of which is quoted earlier in this decision.

There was no appeal interposed by the parties. The decision became final and executory in 1983. In fact, it was executed and fully satisfied in 1985.

On January 5, 1996 respondent Montano who was counsel for petitioner in the case below filed with the trial court an omnibus motion for payment of his attorney's fees. Without hearing, on January 29, 1996, the trial court, presided over by respondent Judge Mangay issued an order directing petitioner Lizardo to pay respondent Atty. Carmelito A. Montano "the agreed attorney's fees of 25% on the property and/or direct the Register of Deeds of Marikina Branch to annotate the attorney's lien of 25% on TCT No. 122925 if plaintiff fails to pay the equivalent value to which Atty. Carmelito A. Montano is entitled to."

When respondent filed with the trial court an omnibus motion for payment of attorney's fees on January 5, 1996, the trial court no longer had jurisdiction over the case. More than thirteen (13) years had lapsed after finality of the judgment. It was even fully satisfied. Consequently, the case was long terminated and could no longer be revived. The decision has become stale. The order dated January 26, 1996 is void. Rtcspped

The basic rule is that once a court acquires jurisdiction over a case, it retains such jurisdiction until the final termination of the case.[7]

The court loses jurisdiction upon the finality of the decision, except to order execution within its lifetime.[8] A decision becomes final upon the expiration of the period to appeal,[9] which is uniformly fixed at fifteen (15) days from notice to the parties,[10] and no appeal is taken therefrom.[11]

What is more, an equally fundamental precept is that a final decision cannot be amended or corrected except for clerical errors, mistakes or misprisions.[12]

In this case, the trial court favorably acted on respondent's motion filed in 1996, long after the court had lost its jurisdiction. The order even varied the terms of the judgment.

The judgment ordered defendant Mirano to pay plaintiff the sum of P19,893.95 as principal plus 12% interest per annum from August 25, 1980 until fully paid and the sum equivalent to 25% of the amount payable as attorney's fees. Clearly, it was defendant Mirano who was sentenced to pay attorney's fees to petitioner. In the questioned order of January 29, 1996, the trial court ordered petitioner to pay attorney's fees to his counsel, respondent Montano. That is not decreed in the judgment. Such variance with the terms of the judgment rendered the order void.[13] If petitioner failed to pay his counsel attorney's fees, the lawyer may file an independent action against petitioner for collection. He cannot enforce his attorney's lien in the case terminated long ago. Korte

WHEREFORE, the Court GRANTS the petition for review on certiorari, and REVERSES the decision in CA-G. R. SP No. 44817 of the Court of Appeals. The Court declares void the order dated January 29, 1996 in Civil Case No. C-9009 of the trial court. Sclaw

No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman), Puno, Kapunan, and Ynares-Santiago, JJ., concur.

[3] Petition, par. 3.4, Annexes "E" and "F", pp. 37-38, 92-94, 98.

[6] Filed on July 7, 1999, Rollo, pp. 34-49. On September 20, 1999, we gave due course to the petition, Rollo, pp. 111-112.

[7] Fuentes vs. Bautista, 153 Phil. 171, 182 [1973]; Tuason vs. Court of Appeals, 241 SCRA 688 [1995].

[8] Rule 39, Section 6, 1964 Revised Rules of Court, now Rule 39, Section 6, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure; Bolanos vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, 138 SCRA 99 [1985]; Pfleider vs. Victoriano, 98 SCRA 491 [1980]; Yu vs. NLRC, 245 SCRA 134 [1995].

[9] St. Dominic Corp. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, 138 SCRA 242 [1985].

[11] Bolanos vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, supra.

[12] Yu vs. NLRC, supra; Henderson vs. Tan, 87 Phil. 466, 469 [1950].

[13] Foremost Farms, Incorporated vs. Department of Labor and Employment, 251 SCRA 123 [1995].