Case Digest (G.R. No. 191247)
Facts:
Francisco L. Rosario, Jr. v. Lellani de Guzman, Arleen de Guzman, Philip Ryan de Guzman, and Rosella de Guzman Bautista, G.R. No. 191247, July 10, 2013, the Supreme Court Third Division, Mendoza, J., writing for the Court.In August 1990, Spouses Pedro and Rosita de Guzman engaged Atty. Francisco L. Rosario, Jr. (petitioner) to defend them in a complaint filed by Loreta A. Chong for annulment of contract and recovery of possession with damages over a 266-square‑meter parcel in Parañaque City (TCT No. 1292). Petitioner represented the Spouses from the Regional Trial Court (RTC) up to the Supreme Court; the Spouses prevailed at all levels. While the case was pending before the Supreme Court, the Spouses died in a vehicular accident and were later substituted by their children — Rosella de Guzman‑Bautista, Lellani de Guzman, Arleen de Guzman, and Philip Ryan de Guzman (respondents).
On September 8, 2009, petitioner filed a Motion to Determine Attorneys Fees in the RTC, alleging an oral agreement with the deceased Spouses that he would receive 25% of the market value of the subject land if he successfully defended them; respondents refused payment. The RTC denied the motion on November 23, 2009, ruling it was filed out of time because the judgment had become final and executory on October 31, 2007, and therefore the court had lost jurisdiction; a motion for reconsideration was also denied on February 11, 2010.
Petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 to the Supreme Court seeking reversal of the RTC orders denying his motion to determine attorneys’ fees. The parties disputed timeliness, the nature of attorneys’ fees awarded previously (an award of P10,000 to the Spouses had been i...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the trial court err in denying the Motion to Determine Attorneys Fees on the ground that it had lost jurisdiction because the judgment had become final and executory?
- Did the trial court err in declaring that petitioner’s claim for attorneys’ fees would result in a variance of the final and executory judgment?
- Did the finality of the decision bar petitioner from filing a motion to recove...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)