ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 151144.February 20, 2002]

PEREZ vs. HON. JUDGE MORALES

THIRD DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated FEB 20 2002 .

G.R. No. 151144(Leonardo J. Perez vs. Hon. Judge Leticia P. Morales, as Presiding Judge of RTC, Br. 140, Makati City, and Robiso & Reyes Law Office Rep. by Atty. Salvador T. Reyes.)

Petitioner assails the resolution of the Court of Appeals upholding the orders issued by the regional trial court relative to an action for legal separation filed by petitioner's wife.

The herein parties entered into a contract of retainership with petitioner retaining the services of private respondent law firm to represent him in the legal separation case filed by petitioner's wife.The retainer agreement provided that private respondent's fee as counsel would be P1 million in addition to a 300-square-meter lot located in Tagaytay City.

In due course, the trial court granted the legal separation upon the estranged couple's execution of a compromise agreement.

Thereafter, private respondent counsel demanded payment of the agreed legal fees but petitioner refused to settle his obligation.Repeated demands proving futile, private respondent filed a petition to Annotate Attorney's Lien on Adverse Claim with Notice to Client.

Upon hearing, petitioner admitted his obligation to private respondent and paid P600,000.00 to the latter then asked for an extension of time to pay the balance of P400,000.00 and to deliver the documents of the Tagaytay lot to private respondent.

Unfortunately, petitioner reneged on his promise hence private respondent sought authority from the court to sell pieces of property of petitioner and to apply the proceeds as payment of counsel's fees.The trial court granted the motion, prompting petitioner to file a notice of appeal which was opposed by private respondent.

On June 15, 1999 the trial court granted private respondent motion to recall and/or to dismiss petitioner's appeal, which the trial court also granted.

Displeased, petitioner elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals assailing the following orders of the trial court: order dated July 11, 1996 granting private respondent's Petition to Annotate Attorney's Lien or Adverse Claim with Notice to Client; order dated March 16, 1998 authorizing the sale of the property of petitioner; order dated April 23, 1998 granting private respondent's Ex-Parte Motion to Serve the Order of March 16, 1998, to petitioner by publication; order dated February 1, 1999 amending the order dated April 23, 1998; order dated June 15, 1999 recalling the April 20, 1999 which gave due course to petitioner's appeal, and thereafter dismissing it; and the order dated January 31, 2000 which denied petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration for lack of merit.Recourse before the appellate court likewise proved unavailing.Thus the instant petition.

The petition must fail.

Petitioner insists that the regional trial court had no jurisdiction to hear and decide private respondent petition to annotate attorney's lien as the same should be filed as an independent action.On this matter, the Court has ruled that a claim for attorney's fees may be asserted either in the very action in which the services of a lawyer had been rendered or in a separate action (Tolentino vs. Escalona, 26 SCRA 613 [1969]).Thus, private respondent had the option of filing a claim for professional fees either in an independent action or in the same action wherein the attorney's fees accrued.Consequently, the trial court had jurisdiction to hear and decide the same.

Anent the allegation that petitioner was denied due process, suffice it to state that petitioner was informed by the trial court of all its orders and hearings.He was likewise notified by publication regarding private respondent's motion to sell the former's properties.Moreover, it should be stressed that petitioner was able to file his Motion for Reconsideration in which he presented his legal defenses with respect to the main subject of the original complaint.His arguments were substantially discussed and debunked by the trial court in its order disposing said motion.Such motion for reconsideration cured whatever defect there may have been, if any, as regards alleged denial of due process.

WHEREFORE, petition is denied due course.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) JULIETA Y. CARREON

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE