Facts:

The case of Vicente Artuyo vs. Antero Azana arose from a legal dispute over the ownership of a monetary deposit of fifty thousand pesos (P50,000) held with the Philippine National Bank and subsequently ordered by the Court of First Instance of Manila. The plaintiff, Vicente Artuyo, filed a case against the defendants, including Antero Azana, claiming entitlement to the said deposit. On October 26, 1935, the trial court ruled in favor of Artuyo, directing the release of the P50,000 deposit to him, subject to the payment of income tax and costs to Azana. Following the initial ruling, both parties reached an amicable settlement and filed a joint motion on October 9, 1935, requesting the court to dismiss the appeal without special pronouncement as costs and to distribute the funds between them based on their agreement. The stipulation designated P15,000 to Azana and the remaining P35,000 along with interest to Artuyo. Additionally, both parties indicated their intent to independentl

...

Facts:

Background of the Case

• The case involves a dispute regarding a judgment ordering the deposit of fifty thousand pesos (P50,000) with the Monte de Piedad and Savings Bank, Manila.
• Plaintiff-appellee Vicente Artuyo was adjudged to receive the principal sum along with accrued and future interest, subject to deductions for income tax as claimed by the Government, while defendant-appellant Antero Azana was directed to bear certain allocations.

Judgment and Original Order

• The Court of First Instance of Manila ordered that:
• The plaintiff, Vicente Artuyo, receive the sum of P50,000 (deposited with the bank) plus corresponding unpaid interest.
• From the same deposit, the defendant, Antero Azana, be allocated P15,000.
• The case was dismissed as to the National Charity Sweepstake of the Philippine Islands without costs.
• The dispositive part of the judgment clearly delineated the allocation of funds between the parties and indicated the costs to be borne by Antero Azana.

Motions and Stipulations Filed by the Parties

• On October 9, 1935, both parties filed motions seeking the approval of a stipulated compromise:
• The motion requested dismissal of the appeal without special pronouncement as to costs.
• It also sought that the Monte de Piedad and Savings Bank pay P15,000 to Antero Azana and the remaining P35,000, plus interest, to Vicente Artuyo.
• The stipulated compromise contained specific terms regarding the division of the deposited sum.
• The stipulation contained the following key points:
• Mutual agreement for the amicable settlement of the case.
• Waiver of further legal representation services from their respective attorneys.
• Specific allocation details: P15,000 designated for Antero Azana and P35,000 plus interest for Vicente Artuyo.

Subsequent Attorney Fee Claims and Supplemental Motions

• On October 12, 1935, plaintiff-appellee Vicente Artuyo filed an ex parte petition requesting:
• The deduction of a professional fee from the awarded sum, amounting to P5,000, in favor of his attorneys (Messrs. Ezpeleta & Varona).
• On October 17, 1935, attorney Anastasio R. Teodoro, representing defendant-appellant Antero Azana, filed a motion:
• Requesting that from the P15,000 allocated to Antero Azana, P2,000 be remitted to him as his professional fee.
• On October 19, 1935, attorney Jose O. Vera, also representing Antero Azana, filed a motion:
• Requesting an order directing the bank to pay him P1,000 from the P15,000 allocated to his client.

Final Judicial Resolution

• The Court, working off the mutual stipulation authorized under Article 1809 of the Civil Code and the several motions of the parties and their counsel, rendered its decision.
• The final judgment ordered:
• The Monte de Piedad and Savings Bank to pay P15,000 to defendant-appellant Antero Azana.
• To allocate from the same P15,000 the following:
• P2,000 to Attorney Anastasio R. Teodoro.
• P1,000 to Attorney Jose O. Vera.
• The remaining sum, P35,000 plus the accrued and future interest, to be paid to plaintiff-appellee Vicente Artuyo.
• The judgment was rendered without special pronouncement as to the costs and was later modified accordingly.

Issue:

Validity of the Amicable Settlement

• Whether the stipulated compromise between the parties, as authorized under Article 1809 of the Civil Code, is valid and enforceable.
• Whether such an amicable settlement can warrant the dismissal of the appeal without special pronouncement on costs.

Distribution and Allocation of the Deposited Sum

• The issue of appropriate distribution of P50,000 between the parties, particularly the split of P15,000 for Antero Azana and P35,000 (plus interest) for Vicente Artuyo.
• The determination of how attorney fees are to be deducted from the respective amounts allocated to each party.

Attorney Fee Claims

• Whether the motions for attorney fees filed by the various counsels on behalf of their clients should be granted.
• The propriety of deducting attorney fees from the settlement funds as stipulated in the compromise agreement.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)