Facts:

This case, titled "Miguel Albano, et al. vs. Fermin Ramos, et al., Perpetua D. Coloma," was decided by the Supreme Court of the Philippines on May 24, 1967, under G.R. No. L-20426. The petitioner-appellee, Atty. Perpetua D. Coloma, served as the legal counsel for the plaintiffs-appellants, Miguel Albano and others, in a dispute against the defendants Fermin Ramos and others, in Civil Case No. 4147 pending in the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Norte. The professional fees for Atty. Coloma were agreed upon contingently—specifically, one-third of any awarded lands and damages, with no compensation if the case was lost. The court ultimately ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, granting them one-fourth of the contested lands along with damages amounting to P17,009.60.

Atty. Coloma filed a motion, leading to a court order dated November 17, 1951, which declared her professional fees as a lien on the judgment for damages but not on the recovery of lands, instructing her to fi

...

Facts:

Background of the Case

• The case involves Miguel Albano, et al. (plaintiffs-appellants) versus Fermin Ramos, et al. (defendants) and Perpetua D. Coloma (petitioner-appellee).
• Perpetua D. Coloma acted as counsel for the plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 4147 filed before the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Norte.
• Her professional fee was agreed upon on a contingent basis, entitling her to one-third of whatever lands and damages might be awarded to her clients, and nothing if the case was lost.

Judgment and Fee Arrangement

• The trial court rendered a judgment awarding the plaintiffs one-fourth (1/4) of the lands in dispute and damages subsequently assessed at P17,009.60.
• Upon her motion, the lower court ordered that her fees be considered a lien on the judgment for damages, but not on the judgment for the recovery of lands.
• The court further ruled that, to claim the one-third share in the lands, she must file a separate and “proper” action.

Post-Judgment Proceedings and Execution

• Despite the ruling on the fee arrangement, petitioner Perpetua D. Coloma later sought to obtain execution against the properties of the plaintiffs to satisfy her fees.
• After protracted proceedings, on October 4, 1957, the Court issued an order detailing the segregation of her fee:
• The order directed the plaintiffs to pay her a lien amounting to P5,669.80 on the damages, or, in lieu thereof, adjust the excess amount already collected.
• It also ordered the segregation of one-third (1/3) of the lands awarded to the plaintiffs for her fee, subject to partition by appointed commissioners if the segregation could not be achieved amicably between the parties.

Disputed Computation and Contentious Orders

• The basis for the cash allocation was the court’s finding that the plaintiffs had collected P13,624.80 out of the full amount of P17,009.60 on the damages judgment.
• The order considered that this amount represented an excess of P3,285.00 over the two-thirds share attributable to the plaintiffs.
• However, it was pointed out that the proper computation should yield an excess of approximately P2,285.00, since two-thirds of P17,009.60 is roughly P11,339.60.
• Plaintiffs raised three assignments of error on appeal:
• The error in the computation made by the trial court.
• The court’s failure to quash the execution levy on the plaintiffs’ properties or to suspend or cancel the auction sale.
• The ordering of a partition of the lands adjudicated to the plaintiffs in order to segregate the one-third portion due to petitioner as her professional fee.

Proceedings on Appeal

• The appellate review primarily focused on the third assignment of error concerning the partition of lands.
• The Court of Appeals, in its decision of August 30, 1965, had already settled that the recovery of petitioner’s share in the lands should be pursued through a separate action.
• In addition, the disputed computation of the excess funds collected was acknowledged as involving questions of fact, thus beyond the proper scope of review on appeal.

Issue:

Whether the partition of the lands to segregate the petitioner’s one-third share as professional fees was proper or should have been pursued in a separate action.

• The main question addressed if the trial court erred in ordering a partition of the lands awarded to the plaintiffs.
• It also considered the fairness and equity of such a partitioning order given the fee agreement and consequent collection amounts.

The correctness of the computation of the fees due to petitioner on the damages awarded.

• Plaintiffs contested the calculation that resulted in an excess of P3,285.00 based on the total collected versus the two-thirds share they were entitled to.
• This computation error was a central issue in determining the exact amount due to petitioner from both cash collected and future collections.

The propriety of executing the order against the plaintiffs’ properties.

• Whether the execution order, which left ambiguity as to against whom it should run (plaintiffs, defendants, or both), was clear and equitable.
• The issue also raised the procedural question on the appropriate course when the judgment’s execution might unfavorably affect either party.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)