Facts:

The case titled "Zaida Ruby S. Alberto v. Court of Appeals, Epifanio J. Alano, Cecilia P. Alano, Yolanda P. Alano, and Natalia Realty, Inc." (G.R. No. 119088, June 30, 2000) involves the petitioner, Atty. Zaida Ruby S. Alberto, and several respondents, which include the spouses Epifanio and Cecilia Alano, their daughter Yolanda, and Natalia Realty, Inc. The petition arose from a legal representation agreement wherein the petitioner was engaged to represent the respondent-spouses before the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in an action related to their stockholdings in Natalia Realty, Inc. The retainer agreement stipulated that the spouses were to pay the petitioner 10% of any awarded real estate and a monetary fee of Two Hundred Thousand Pesos (P200,000). Subsequently, the petitioner initiated SEC Case No. 3054 against Eugenio S. Baltao and others. However, unbeknownst to the petitioner, the respondent-spouses reached a settlement with Baltao, which they execut

...

Facts:

Retainer Agreement and Representation

• Respondent spouses Epifanio and Cecilia Alano retained petitioner Atty. Zaida Ruby S. Alberto to represent them before the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in an action to recover real properties, money, and other assets arising from their stockholdings in Natalia Realty, Inc.
• The retainer agreement was contingent in nature, providing for petitioner’s fees as (a) a ten percent (10%) equivalent in kind of any real estate awarded and (b) a fixed sum of Two Hundred Thousand Pesos (₱200,000.00).

Initiation of SEC Case and Settlement

• In furtherance of the retainer agreement, petitioner filed SEC Case No. 3054 for liquidation, accounting, and damages against Eugenio S. Baltao and other individuals associated with Natalia Realty, Inc.
• During the pendency of the case, respondent spouses unilaterally settled with the opposing parties without the knowledge or consent of petitioner, resulting in a dismissal of the SEC action.
• Respondent spouses anticipated receiving 35 hectares of land as part of the settlement.

Regional Trial Court Decision in Civil Case No. 57023

• The Regional Trial Court of Pasig ruled in favor of petitioner by declaring her entitled to:
• Ten percent (10%), equivalent to 3½ hectares of the 35 hectares awarded to the respondent spouses as attorney’s fees.
• Monetary awards comprising the balance of her fee, moral damages, exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees and litigation expenses, all bearing interest.
• The court further ordered that the attorney’s fees be registered as a lien on the properties subject to the settlement by annotating the lien on the relevant Transfer Certificates of Title.

Discovery of Property Sale and Filing of the Second Amended Complaint

• When petitioner attempted to enforce the judgment, the issuance of the writ of execution revealed scant leviable assets (only ₱3,500.00 from personal properties) of the respondent spouses.
• It was discovered that Natalia Realty, Inc. had sold approximately 23 hectares of the 32.4 hectares (awarded by the SEC settlement) to Yolanda Alano, the daughter of the respondent spouses.
• The sale was executed on December 28, 1988—six days prior to the respondents’ motion to dismiss the SEC case.
• Prompted by this development, petitioner filed a Complaint—and subsequently a Second Amended Complaint—seeking to annul the deed of sale on the ground that the sale was simulated, attaching a notice of lis pendens and supporting documents.

Dismissal of the Second Amended Complaint and Subsequent Appeals

• The trial court dismissed the Second Amended Complaint for insufficiency of cause of action, leading to the cancellation of the notice of lis pendens and the annotation of the attorney’s lien.
• The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal, reasoning that:
• The Deed of Sale was executed before the initiation of the complaint for attorney’s fees and did not involve petitioner as a contracted party.
• Defendant Yolanda P. Alano, having validly purchased the property, was a stranger to the contractual obligations binding the respondent spouses.
• Petitioner challenged these rulings, maintaining that she had a sufficient cause of action stemming from the retainer agreement and the subsequent wrongful sale, and contended that the notice of lis pendens was necessary to protect her rights.

Issue:

Sufficiency of Cause of Action in the Second Amended Complaint

• Whether the allegations in the Second Amended Complaint, when read in conjunction with the attached documents (such as the retainer agreement, the Regional Trial Court decision, and the deed of sale), sufficiently establish a cause of action against Yolanda P. Alano despite her not being a party to the original contract.
• Whether strict adherence to the rule of considering only the averments in the complaint (and excluding extraneous pleadings) unjustly bars the claim of attorney’s fees arising from the retainer agreement.

Appropriateness of the Notice of Lis Pendens

• Whether the case should be considered as one affecting title or possession of real property, thereby justifying the annotation of a notice of lis pendens on the disputed properties.
• Whether canceling the notice of lis pendens, given the risk of dissipation of assets by respondent spouses through the simulated sale, amounts to a premature and harmful ruling against the protection of petitioner’s rights.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)