Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1966 > August 1966 Decisions > G.R. No. L-21287 August 31, 1966 ENRILE INTON v. JULIAN VILLANUEVA MATUTE:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-21287. August 31, 1966.]

TESTATE ESTATE OF AMADEO MATUTE OLAVE, CELESTINO ALONZO, Administrator IN RE: INCIDENT ON THE RETAINING LIEN OF ATTY. ANTONIO ENRILE INTON, oppositor-appellant, v. JULIAN VILLANUEVA MATUTE, co-administrator-appellee.

Antonio Enrile Inton for and in his own behalf Oppositor-Appellant.

Paternos R. Canlas for co-administrator-appellee.


D E C I S I O N


BARRERA, J.:


This is one of the many incidents of Special Proceeding No. 25876 (Testate Estate of Amadeo Matute Olave) still pending final termination in the Court of First Instance of Manila.

On January 3, 1963, Julian Villanueva Matute, as newly-appointed co-administrator of the Testate Estate of Amadeo Matute Olave, filed a motion with the probate court, praying that Atty. Antonio Enrile Inton be ordered to surrender and deliver to him (movant) all certificates of title, plans, documents, and papers belonging to the Estate and which were in the possession of said lawyer, in order that they may be kept in the office of the Estate in Davao City and be ready for inspection should the management of the properties require it. This motion was opposed by Atty. Antonio Enrile Inton, who alleged that he was the counsel for the Estate and the former administrator, Celestino Alonzo; that for said legal services, he filed with the probate court on October 10, 1962, a claim for payment of his lawful fees from November 26, 1958 to October 26, 1962 1 at the rate of P1,200.00 a month or a total of P72,500.00, excluding the compensation for handling the defense against various claims filed in the estate proceeding, which should be on quantum meruit basis; that he came into possession of 20 certificates of title 2 in the course of his work as counsel for the Estate and the former administrator. Oppositor, therefore, contended that until his claim for attorney’s fees is settled, he will be exercising a retaining lien over the aforesaid documents belonging to the Estate. After the issues were joined, the court a quo by order of January 7, 1963, granted the motion of the co- administrator and ordered Atty. Enrile Inton to deliver the 19 documents listed in the Opposition and admitted by the latter to belong to the Estate. Atty. Enrile Inton filed the present appeal, which calls only for the determination of whether or not he has the right to retain the titles and documents in question, until his claim for attorney’s fees is finally settled.

Section 37 of Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"SEC. 37. Attorney’s liens. — An attorney shall have a lien upon the funds, documents and papers of his client which have lawfully come into his possession and may retain the same until his lawful fees and disbursements have been paid, . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library

Thereunder, there is no question that a lawyer has a retaining lien upon the funds, documents and papers of his client that may have come lawfully into his possession until his lawful fees are duly paid.

In the present case, it is not disputed that appellant was commissioned to render, as in fact he did render, legal services to the former administrator of the Estate, Celestino Alonzo. Thus, said administrator certified:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"SEPAN TODOS POR LA PRESENTE:red:chanrobles.com.ph

"Sirvase tomar nota que effectivo el dia 15 de Noviembre de 1938 he nombrado el Abbgado Sr. Antonio Enrile Inton como mi unico abogado por el administrador en Davao de Amadeo Matute Olave, para representarme en el procedimiento y demas otros litigios, en donde la Testamentaria Amadeo Matute Olave se concierne. . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library

It is clear therefrom that appellant was appointed by Alonzo as his lawyer, to represent him in all suits affecting the Estate under his trust. This appointment, however, was not in pursuance to any court order, nor was it approved by the probate court. It was an act personal to the administrator. The creation of the professional relationship between appellant and the administrator did not, therefore, make the Estate also a client of the said lawyer.

And, it may be stated in this connection, that for legal services rendered to the administrator, the estate under administration cannot be directly held liable for payment of the corresponding attorney’s fees. In the case of Uy Tioco v. Imperial and Panis, 3 this Court ruled thus:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

". . .The services for which fees are claimed are supposed to have been rendered to the executor or administrator to assist him in the execution of his trust. The attorney can therefore not hold the estate directly liable for his fees; such fees are allowed to the executor or administrator and not to the attorney. The liability for the payment rests on the executor or administrator, but if the fees paid are beneficial to the estate and reasonable, he is entitled to reimbursement from the estate, Such payments should be included in his accounts and the reimbursement therefor settled upon the notice prescribed in section 682 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 4 (See Church on Probate Law and Practice, pp. 1570-1588 and authorities there cited; Woerner on the American Law of Administration 2d ed., sections 515 and 516.)"

It follows as a necessary consequence that the lawyer for the administrator or executor cannot claim to have a retaining lien over any funds, papers, or documents belonging to the Estate, even if these properties may have come into his possession in the course of his work as such counsel for the administrator.

Wherefore, the order appealed from is hereby affirmed, with costs against the appellant. So ordered.

Concepcion, C.J., J.B.L. Reyes, Dizon, Makalintal, J.P. Bengzon, Zaldivar, Sanchez and Castro, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Date when administrator Celestino Alonzo was removed from such office by order of the probate court.

2. Of these titles, Oppositor claims that one does not belong to the Estate.

3. 53 Phil. 803, cited with approval in Albino v. Borromeo, G. R. No. L-19722, Feb. 28, 1966.

4. Now Section 10, Rule 85, Revised Rules of Court.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






August-1966 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 15905 August 3, 1966 NICANOR T. JIMENEZ, ET AL. v. BARTOLOME CABANGBANG

  • G.R. No. L-17838 August 3, 1966 NASIPIT LABOR UNION v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21885 August 3, 1966 GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. v. BONIFACIO ABIN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14044 August 5, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENEDICTO BALILI, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20938 August 9, 1966 NEW HAMPSHIRE FIRE INSURANCE CO. v. MANILA PORT SERVICE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22534 August 9, 1966 INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA v. MARITIME COMPANY OF THE PHILIPPINES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-13896 August 10, 1966 IN RE: ERNESTO TING v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-16488 August 12, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUAN RAQUINIO

  • G.R. No. L-19520 August 12, 1966 FELIPE NACORDA, ET AL. v. NICASIO YATCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24672 August 12, 1966 REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. MODESTO R. RAMOLETE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25660 August 12, 1966 LEOPOLDO VENCILAO, ET AL. v. TEODORO VAÑO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-11077 August 23, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LI BUN JUAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20020 August 23, 1966 TAN TE BUNTIONG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-17243 August 23, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. IGNACIO VILLALBA

  • G.R. No. L-19832 August 23, 1966 IN RE: BERNARDO YAP v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21768 August 23, 1966 BACHRACH TRANSPORTATION CO., INC., ET AL. v. RURAL TRANSIT EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23286 August 23, 1966 QUERUBIN PERFECTO v. ALFREDO SAPICO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25635 August 23, 1966 JOSE C. ZULUETA, ET AL. v. CECILIA MUÑOZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-5796 August 29, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GUILLERMO CAPADOCIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24439 August 29, 1966 HADJI ARSAD SALI v. BENJAMIN ABUBAKAR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18454 August 29, 1966 MARIANO CABILAO, ET AL. v. JUDGE OF THE CFI OF ZAMBOANGA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21230 August 29, 1966 GOLD STAR MINING CO., INC. v. SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21376 August 29, 1966 LUZ M. GIGARE v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

  • G.R. No. L-21796 August 29, 1966 NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21287 August 31, 1966 ENRILE INTON v. JULIAN VILLANUEVA MATUTE

  • G.R. No. L-21930 August 31, 1966 AGAPITA PAJARILLO, ET AL. v. SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM

  • G.R. No. L-16759 August 31, 1966 RAFAEL MORALES v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. L-23635 August 31, 1966 TEODORO M. CASTRO v. RUFINO G. HECHANOVA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18726 August 31, 1966 THOMAS M. GONZALEZ v. DEMETRIO B. ENCARNACION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18961 August 31, 1966 ATLANTIC MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL. v. CEBU STEVEDORING CO., INC.

  • G.R. No. L-19376 August 31, 1966 TE ATTA UY VDA. DE CAJUCOM v. MANILA REMNANT CO., INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19833 August 31, 1966 IN RE: COSME GO TIAN AN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20809 August 31, 1966 IN RE: LIM ENG YU v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20821 August 31, 1966 BEATRIZ M. VDA. DE CASTILLO, ET AL. v. BLANCA CASTILLO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21055 August 31, 1966 CALTEX (PHILIPPINES.) INC. v. MANILA PORT SERVICE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21223 August 31, 1966 PHILIPPINE BLOOMING MILLS CO., INC. v. SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM

  • G.R. No. L-21442 August 31, 1966 SALUD S. PAPA v. GERVACIO S. BANAAG

  • G.R. No. L-21512 August 31, 1966 PROSPERO SABIDO, ET AL. v. CARLOS CUSTODIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-21703-04 August 31, 1966 MATEO H. REYES, ET AL. v. MATEO RAVAL REYES

  • G.R. No. 21969 August 31, 1966 INDUSTRIAL TEXTILE MANUFACTURING COMPANY OF THE PHILIPPINES v. SOFIA REYES FLORZO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-25994 and L-26004 to L-26046 August 31, 1966 BATANGAS LAGUNA TAYABAS BUS COMPANY v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26376 August 31, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AURELIO BALISACAN