Case Digest (G.R. No. 86100-03)
Case Digest (G.R. No. 86100-03)
Facts:
Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company v. The Honorable Court of Appeals and Arturo Alafriz and Associates, G.R. Nos. 86100-03. January 23, 1990, the Supreme Court Second Division, Regalado, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company (Metrobank) was defendant in a series of consolidated civil actions filed by Eustaquio Alejandro and others for annulment of deeds of sale and damages. From March 1974 to September 1983 private respondent Arturo Alafriz and Associates represented Metrobank in those actions before the then Court of First Instance of Pasig (multiple branches). The suits arose after Celedonio Javier purchased seven parcels from Alejandro, mortgaged them to Metrobank to secure a loan of Felix Angelo Bautista/International Hotel Corporation, defaulted, and Metrobank foreclosed and received sheriff’s certificates of sale; Alejandro later sued Javier et al., and impleaded Metrobank alleging fraud in the original sale.
While the suits were pending Metrobank sold the litigated parcels to its sister corporation Service Leasing Corporation on March 23, 1983; Service Leasing resold them the same day to Herby Commercial and Construction Corporation, which in June 1983 mortgaged them to Banco de Oro. In July 1983 Metrobank moved for substitution of party after the transfer. On August 16, 1983 Arturo Alafriz and Associates filed a verified motion to enter a charging lien under Section 37, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, claiming 25% of the actual and current market values of the properties as attorneys’ fees; Metrobank did not oppose, and the trial court ordered annotation of the lien on the titles.
The plaintiffs later moved to dismiss their consolidated complaints “in view of the full satisfaction of their claims,” and the trial court granted dismissal with prejudice on September 5, 1983; on December 29, 1983 it ordered annotation of the attorney’s liens on the derivative titles cancelling the original TCTs. On May 28, 1984 private respondent moved to fix attorney’s fees on a quantum meruit basis; Metrobank said it had fully paid counsel (claiming advances), while counsel maintained the payments were not full satisfaction and had unsuccessfully tried to compromise for P600,000.
On October 15, 1984 the trial court ordered Metrobank and Herby to pay Arturo Alafriz and Associates P936,000 as attorney’s fees. The Court of Appeals, in CA-G.R. Nos. 08265–08268 (opinion by Castro-Bartolome, with Pronove and Cacdac concurring), affirmed that order in a decision promulgated February 11, 1988. Metrobank’s motion for reconsideration was denied on November 19, 1988. Metrobank then filed this petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, assailing the appellate decision. The Supreme Court heard the matter and rendered the present decision reversing the Court of Appeals.
Issues:
- Is private respondent entitled to enforcement of its attorney’s charging lien under Section 37, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court?
- If not, is a separate civil suit necessary for enforcing an attorney’s charging lien or fixing attorney’s fees?
- Is private respondent entitled to twenty-five percent (25%) of the actual and current market values of the litigated properties on a quantum meruit basis?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)