HEIRS and/or ESTATE
OF ATTY. G.R. No. 184799
ROLANDO P.
SIAPIAN, represented
by SUSAN S.
MENDOZA,
Petitioners, Present:
CARPIO, J., Chairperson,
- versus - NACHURA,
BERSAMIN,*
ABAD, and
MENDOZA, JJ.
INTESTATE ESTATE OF
THE LATE
EUFROCINA G. MACKAY
as represented
by DR. RODERICK
MACKAY and ENGR.
ELVIN MACKAY IN
THEIR CAPACITY
AS THE NEWLY COURT APPOINTED
CO-ADMINISTRATORS, Promulgated:
Respondents.
September 1, 2010
x
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
x
ABAD,
J.:
This case is about, first, the
propriety of hearing and adjudicating a claim for attorney’s fees in the case
in which the lawyer rendered his services and, second, the need to establish
extrinsic fraud or lack of jurisdiction in actions for annulment of judgment or
final order.
The
Facts and the Case
On
May 14, 1994 Eufrocina G. Mackay died intestate in
On
July 1, 1994 Antonio filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of P3 million.[2]
On
November 2, 1994 the intestate court issued an order appointing Antonio and
Arturo as co-special administrators of the Estate. About a year and a half later or in April
1996, Arturo, et al told the RTC[3]
that they had terminated Atty. Siapian’s services. This prompted Atty. Siapian to file a motion,[4]
claiming payment of his attorney’s fees.
He asked the court not to recognize in the meantime any new counsel for
Arturo, et al since they illegally
terminated his services. The Estate
opposed the motion, saying that it cannot be held answerable for Atty.
Siapian’s claim for attorney’s fees against his clients.
On
August 1, 1996 the court denied Atty. Siapian’s motion on the ground that it had
limited jurisdiction and could not resolve issues relating to attorney’s fees
which was a concern only of the lawyer and his clients. Despite this order, Atty. Siapian filed on
September 2, 1996 a motion for enforcement and annotation of his attorney’s
lien.[5] He also asked the court to: 1) reconsider its
August 1, 1996 order; 2) direct Arturo, et
al to pay his attorney’s fees; and 3) order the Register of Deeds to
inscribe his claim as a lien on the titles of the Estate to its properties.
On
April 3, 1997 the intestate court granted the motion.[6] The court said that, while the Estate itself cannot
be held liable for subject attorney’s fees for lack of privity of contract, Arturo,
et al should jointly pay the P3
million attorney’s fees of Atty. Siapian.
His clients, said the court, must judiciously and fairly exercise their
right to terminate the services of counsel and this cannot be for the purpose
of evading an obligation to pay his fees.
The court pointed out that Arturo, et
al did not present proof that Atty. Siapian was inept and remiss in his
duties. Rather, the records showed that he
competently handled the case. Arturo, et al appealed[7]
the order.
On
September 8, 1997, however, the intestate court issued an order, 1) denying due
course to the appeal for having been filed beyond the reglementary period and,
2) granting Atty. Siapian’s motion for issuance of a writ of execution.[8] Arturo, et
al filed a special civil action of certiorari
before the Court of Appeals (CA). On
September 18, 1997 the CA dismissed the petition for their failure to deposit
the amount required as payment for costs.[9] On October 11, 1997 the order of dismissal
became final and later an entry of judgment was made on its account.[10]
On
September 17, 1997 Atty. Siapian moved for the entry and inscription of his
attorney’s lien on the titles of the Estate’s properties. Meanwhile, on October 15, 1997 Atty. Siapian
died and was substituted by his heirs.
On June 18, 1998 the intestate court issued an Order, directing the
Register of Deeds of Caloocan City,
Seven
years later or on October 10, 2005 Arturo, et
al filed before the CA a Petition for
Annulment of Judgment or Final Orders and Resolutions under Rule 47 of the
Rules of Court, asking the CA to declare null and void the following orders for
having been issued by the intestate court without jurisdiction:
1) The April 3, 1997 Order, requiring Arturo,
et al to jointly pay the attorney’s
fees;
2) The July 4, 1997 Order, denying the motion
to reconsider the April 3 order;
3) The September 8, 1997 Order, granting
Atty. Siapian’s motion for issuance of writ of execution; and
4) The June 18, 1998 order, directing the
Register of Deeds to annotate the attorney’s lien on the titles of the Estate’s
property.
On
April 22, 2008 the CA rendered a decision, declaring the June 18, 1998 order of
the intestate court null and void.[12] The CA
ruled that the Estate cannot be held liable for attorney’s fees arising out of
the dispute between the Estate’s beneficiaries and their lawyer. Only Arturo, et al, in their personal capacities, should be held liable to Atty.
Siapian. The April 3 and September 8,
1997 orders clearly stated that only they are liable to the lawyer since the Estate
was not a party to their fee agreement. The
CA annulled the June 18, 1998 order since it encumbered and made the Estate’s properties
answerable to Atty. Siapian’s claim for attorney’s fees.
Further,
the CA noted that the late Atty. Siapian failed to fully accomplish the purpose
for which his services were engaged and that the shares of Arturo, et al in the properties of the Estate
remained to be ascertained. The inventory
of assets was still to be completed and the Estate’s debts settled. Even so, said the CA, the reasonableness of Atty.
Siapian’s claim for attorney’s fees was yet to be determined. The heirs of Atty. Siapian moved for the
reconsideration of the decision but the CA denied the same.[13]
Questions
Presented
Petitioner
heirs of Atty. Siapian present the following issues:
1. Whether or not the CA erred in
effectively setting aside the intestate court’s order of April 3, 1997 for
Arturo, et al to pay Atty. Siapian’s P3
million claim for attorney’s fees; and
2. Whether or not the CA erred in nullifying the June 18, 1998
order of the intestate court which directed the annotation of the attorney’s
lien on the titles of the properties of the Estate.
The
Court’s Rulings
One. It is settled that a claim for attorney’s fees
may be asserted either in the very action in which a lawyer rendered his
services or in a separate action.[14] But enforcing it in the main case bodes well
as it forestalls multiplicity of suits.
The intestate court in this case, therefore, correctly allowed Atty.
Siapian to interject his claim for attorney’s fees in the estate proceedings
against some of the heirs and, after hearing, adjudicate the same on April 3,
1997 with an order for Arturo, et al
to pay Atty. Siapian the fees of P3 million due him.[15]
The
record shows that Arturo, et al filed
a notice of appeal from the intestate court’s April 3, 1997 order but the
latter court declined to give due course to it for having been filed out of
time.[16] This prompted them to file a special civil
action for certiorari with the CA.[17] But the latter dismissed the petition for the
failure of Arturo, et al to deposit
the amount required as payment for costs.
The dismissal became final and an entry of judgment was made in the case
on September 8, 1997.
Arturo, et al has failed to establish any ground for the CA to annul the
April 3, 1997 order. They allege no
extrinsic fraud committed in the issuance of that order. Nor were they able to show that the intestate
court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the claim of Atty. Siapian for
attorney’s fees. Parenthetically, the Court
cannot but give credence to the intestate court’s finding that Atty. Siapian
competently handled the cause of Arturo, et
al[18]
up until they terminated his services.
Two.
Since the award of P3 million in attorney’s fees in favor of
Atty. Siapian had already become final and executory, the intestate court was
within its powers to order the Register of Deeds to annotate his lien on the
Estate’s titles to its properties. The
Estate has no cause for complaint since the lien was neither a claim nor a burden
against the Estate itself. It was not
enforceable against the Estate but only against Arturo, et al, who constituted the majority of the heirs. It is a lien contingent on the intestate
court’s final determination of Arturo, et
al’s shares of what would remain of the estate’s properties after payment
of taxes and debts. Thus, the June 18,
1998 order explicitly stated that “The attorney’s lien however shall affect the
distributive share of the Oppositors, namely: Arturo, Elpidio, Domingo and
Ronald, all surnamed Mackay.”[19]
At any rate, the Estate’s
petition under Rule 47 of the Rules of Court was not the proper remedy for nullifying
the June 18, 1998 order of the intestate court, which directed the annotation
of Atty. Siapian’s lien on the titles of the Estate’s properties. That order is interlocutory. An interlocutory order refers to a ruling
respecting some point or matter between the commencement and end of the suit,
but is not a final adjudication of the claims and liabilities of the parties that
are in dispute in that suit. The June 18,
1998 order only dealt with and resolved the incidental matter of whether to
allow the annotation of an attorney’s lien on the properties of the Estate. Evidently, that order did not settle any
claim for money or impose any liability against any of the parties to the case.
The
Court ruled in Palanca v. Pecson[20]
that an attorney may cause a statement of his lien to be registered even before
the rendition of any judgment, the purpose being merely to establish his right
to the lien. The recording of an
attorney’s lien is distinct from its enforcement, which may only take place
after the judgment is secured in favor of the client. The CA therefore erred in declaring null and
void the June 18, 1998 order of the intestate court.
WHEREFORE, the Court GRANTS the petition, SETS
ASIDE the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP 91652 dated April
22, 2008, and REINSTATES the June
18, 1998 Order of the
SO
ORDERED.
ROBERTO A. ABAD
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
ANTONIO
EDUARDO B. NACHURA LUCAS
P. BERSAMIN
Associate Justice Associate Justice
JOSE CATRAL
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the
above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to
the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Second Division
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII
of the Constitution and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, I certify that
the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before
the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
RENATO
C. CORONA
Chief Justice
* Designated as additional member in lieu of
Associate Justice Diosdado M. Peralta, per Special Order No. 882 dated August
31, 2010.
[1]
Docketed as Special Proceeding C-1814, RTC of
[2]
Annex “E” of Petition, rollo,
p. 75.
[3]
Urgent Manifestation, CA rollo,
pp. 79-80.
[4]
Manifestation and Motion, id. at 81-82.
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
Rollo, pp. 54-68.
[13]
[14] Traders Royal Bank Employees Union-Independent v. National Labor
Relations Commission, 336 Phil. 705, 713 (1997); Tolentino v. Hon. Escalona, 136 Phil. 13, 18 (1969).
[15]
CA rollo, p. 73.
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
Rollo, p. 119.
[20]
94 Phil. 419, 422 (1954).