Case Digest (G.R. No. 28252)
Facts:
Helen Dahlke v. Carmen Vina, G.R. No. 28252, March 14, 1928, the Supreme Court En Banc, Johns, J., writing for the Court.On May 27, 1927 the law firm Gibbs & McDonough filed an attorney’s lien in the Court of First Instance of the City of Manila, claiming P2,000 as the reasonable value of legal services rendered to Helen Dahlke (plaintiff and appellant) and asking that the lien be noted of record against the judgment previously rendered for Dahlke against Carmen Vina (defendant and appellee). The lien alleged the requirements of the statute had been met and sought protection of the attorneys’ right to the judgment proceeds.
On June 3, 1927 a Vacation Justice of the Supreme Court ordered the lien noted of record and directed certified copies of the lien and order be furnished the lower court when the record was remanded. The record was remitted to the Court of First Instance, where Gibbs & McDonough petitioned the trial court to have the clerk issue the writ of execution in the attorneys’ name so the judgment proceeds could be paid directly to them.
The trial court granted the petition and ordered the writ of execution issued in the name of Gibbs & McDonough making the amount payable to the attorneys. Dahlke moved to revoke that order, asserting (a) she did not owe the attorneys the claimed sum nor had she been informed of such an obligation, (b) she was not insolvent, and (c) no formal demand had been made; she complained that the trial court had admitted the petition and issued execution without allowing her an opportunity to present evidence on the amount of any lien.
After a hearing at which no testimony was taken as to the value of services, the trial court denied Dahlke’s motion. Dahlke appealed to the Supreme Court, which took up...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the attorneys’ notice of lien comply with Section 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure so as to create a lien on the judgment?
- Could the trial court properly order the writ of execution issued in the attorneys’ name and direct payment to them without a judicial determination of the amount of the attorneys’ unliquidated claim and without affording the clie...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)