G.R. No. 211017 - Tirol vs. Tayengco-Lopingco

The case involves two petitions filed in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) involving the estates of Spouses Tayengco.
Petitioners, represented by the Law Office (Tirol & Tirol Law Office), initially represented the heirs in Special Proceeding Nos. 2186 (intestate estate of Salvacion Tayengco) and 2809 (petition to approve the will of Jose Tayengco).
The Law Office withdrew its representation on October 17, 1997 due to a conflict of interest, arising from the familial relationship between Atty. Cesar T. Tirol (a senior member of the Law Office) and the heirs.

On April 30, 1999, through Atty. Arturo M. Alinio, the Law Office filed a motion in the RTC seeking:

The fixing of attorney’s fees on a quantum meruit basis; and
An order directing the administratrix/executrix (Elizabeth S. Tayengco) to pay these fees.

The billing sent by petitioners on March 30, 1998 and July 14, 1998 demanded fees amounting to P13,463,500.00, calculated as 7% of the fair market value of the estates.
The motion further requested, pending the final determination, that the administratrix/executrix pay an interim amount equivalent to 1/3 of the total bill.

The heirs opposed the motion on the ground that the fees demanded were unreasonable.
Atty. Thomas S. Tayengco, representing one of the heirs, filed a formal appearance with motions to set aside the hearing order on the motion for attorney’s fees and to quash a subpoena duces tecum. His contention was that failure to pay docket fees rendered the RTC without jurisdiction to decide the motion.
The RTC initially dismissed the motion on August 23, 2000 due to non-payment of docket fees.

Upon the Law Office’s filing of a motion for reconsideration, the RTC reinstated its earlier order on June 9, 2006, directing the payment of docket fees and holding that the attorney’s fee claim was against the administratrix/executrix, not directly against the estates.
A subsequent motion for reconsideration filed by petitioners was denied on May 16, 2007, affirming the docket fee requirement as essential for the court’s jurisdiction over the fee claim.

Petitioners sought relief from the CA through a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 challenging the RTC orders.
The CA, in its Decision dated November 29, 2012, denied the petition on the ground that the RTC’s error, though present, did not rise to the level of grave abuse of discretion warranting certiorari.
A Motion for Reconsideration before the CA was similarly denied in a Resolution dated December 6, 2013.

A Notice of Death was filed, indicating the demise of Atty. Arturo M. Alinio on January 24, 2019, which was later acknowledged in the case records.
Petitioners contended that the RTC’s reliance on Lacson v. Judge Reyes, which required the payment of docket fees, was erroneous, and that the proper guiding case should have been Pascual v. Court of Appeals.

Petitioners maintained that the RTC’s imposition of a docket fee requirement in a claim for attorney’s fees against an estate conflicted with prevailing jurisprudence (notably Pascual and Sheker) and amounted to grave abuse of discretion.
Respondents argued that notwithstanding any error, the RTC’s orders were not arbitrary or capricious, that petitioners should have utilized an ordinary appeal instead, and that the claim had already prescribed under the Rules of Court.

Whether the Orders of the RTC directing the payment of docket fees before the court could take cognizance of the petitioners’ motion for attorney’s fees constitute grave abuse of discretion.
Whether the RTC improperly applied Lacson v. Judge Reyes instead of the more appropriate precedent, Pascual v. Court of Appeals, for motions seeking attorney’s fees against an estate.
Whether the alleged jurisdictional defect (non-payment of docket fees) is a sufficient basis to nullify the RTC’s orders, thereby justifying a petition for certiorari despite the availability of an ordinary appeal.