Case Digest (G.R. No. 161390)
Facts:
Raul H. Sesbreno v. Hon. Court of Appeals, Province of Cebu, Gov. Eduardo R. Gullas, the Provincial Treasurer, the Provincial Auditor, the Provincial Engineer Patrocinio Bacay (G.R. No. 161390, April 16, 2008, Supreme Court Third Division, Nachura, J., writing for the Court). For review is the Court of Appeals Decision dated July 23, 2003 and its Resolution dated January 12, 2004 in CA-G.R. CV No. 43287; the petition to the Court sought reversal of the CA's dismissal of petitioner’s complaint after the RTC had earlier ruled for him in Civil Case R-19022.In January 26, 1970 petitioner, a lawyer, entered into a contingency-fee Agreement with Mrs. Rosario Sen and other permanent laborers (the “camineros”) under which he would receive thirty percent (30%) of whatever back salaries, damages, etc. they might recover in their mandamus and related cases. Petitioner registered a charging/retaining lien on April 17, 1979 based on that Agreement. The camineros obtained favorable judgment from the Court of First Instance (now RTC) ordering reinstatement with back salaries; that judgment spawned certiorari proceedings before the Supreme Court in which petitioner continued to render legal assistance.
When Gov. Eduardo R. Gullas assumed office, he negotiated a compromise settlement of the mandamus cases. On April 21, 1979 a Compromise Agreement was executed between the Province of Cebu (through Gov. Gullas) and the camineros, expressly acknowledging petitioner’s registered charging lien and providing for advance payments through petitioner; this compromise was adopted by the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Public Highways v. Burgos (No. L-36752-53, December 18, 1979), later corrected October 13, 1981.
After finality, execution was sought. The trial court ordered partial execution (45% payment) and held 55% in abeyance pending determination of attorney’s fees, but the Province instead paid the camineros the full amounts directly. Petitioner then filed a Complaint for Damages (through breach of contract) and attorney’s fees against the Province, Gov. Gullas, the provincial treasurer, auditor, engineer (official and personal capacities), and against his former clients. On August 23, 1982 petitioner moved to dismiss the case against the camineros after settling with them; he continued the action against the respondents.
On October 18, 1992 the RTC, Branch 6, Cebu City, rendered judgment for petitioner, awarding P669,336.51 in actual damages (with 12% interest from demand), P20,000.00 moral damages, P5,000.00 litigation expenses, and costs, on the ground that the camineros’ claims were miscomputed at provincial rather than national rates and that petitioner was prejudiced. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed and dismissed the complaint in CA-G.R. CV No. 43287 (July 23, 2003), concluding petitioner ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Procedural: Should the Court of Appeals’ reversal be set aside because of excessive delay in rendering decision or for defects in the appellant’s brief warranting dismissal?
- Substantive: Did the Province of Cebu and the respondent public officials commit a breach of contract or otherwise become liable for damages to petitioner by directly paying the camineros and by allegedly computing their awards at the provincial rather than national wage rate, thereby impairing petit...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)