G.R. No. 31884 & G.R. No. 31866 , February 27, 1930
MANILA BUILDING AND LOAN ASSOCIATION, plaintiff-appellee, vs. B. A. GREEN, defendant-appellant, S. W. O’BRIEN, ET AL., defendants-appellees.

FACTS

The Manila Building and Loan Association (MBLA) filed two separate foreclosure suits against B. A. Green to recover on a single promissory note secured by a real estate mortgage covering properties located in two different jurisdictions: one in Manila ( G.R. No. 31884 ) and another in Rizal ( G.R. No. 31866 ). S. W. O’Brien et al. were impleaded as defendants in both suits due to their second mortgage on the same properties. Green did not contest the merits of the foreclosure but appealed the awards of attorney’s fees. The trial courts granted MBLA a total of P7,500 (P5,000 in Rizal and P2,500 in Manila) and O’Brien et al. a total of P5,000 (P2,500 in each case) as attorney’s fees. Green argued that only one attorney’s fee should be awarded per mortgagee since the suits arose from a single obligation.

ISSUE

1. Whether separate attorney’s fees may be awarded in the two foreclosure suits involving a single mortgage but covering properties in different jurisdictions.
2. What constitutes a reasonable award of attorney’s fees under the circumstances.

RULING

The Supreme Court consolidated the cases and modified the attorney’s fees awards.
1. On the entitlement to attorney’s fees: The Court recognized that while the mortgage and note were single, the properties were situated in two different provinces, necessitating separate foreclosure proceedings in two courts. This resulted in at least double the legal work for the attorneys. Thus, separate awards were justified but must be reasonable.
2. On the reasonableness of the awards:
– For MBLA: The mortgage stipulated a 10% attorney’s fee on the amount due (approximately P10,330). The Court reduced the total award from P7,500 to P7,000, with interest from the date of filing the second complaint, deeming this a reasonable single fee for the consolidated foreclosure work across both jurisdictions.
– For O’Brien et al.: The second mortgage expressly stipulated an attorney’s fee of P2,500 in case of suit. The Court held the parties bound by this stipulation and limited the total recovery to P2,500 (instead of P5,000), with interest from the date of filing the answer in the first case, as full satisfaction for both suits.
3. On satisfaction of judgments: The Court clarified that both MBLA and O’Brien et al. are entitled to only one full satisfaction of their respective judgments. Payment of the full amounts due under the modified awards in one case would operate as complete satisfaction for both suits.

The trial courts’ judgments were affirmed in all other respects. No costs were awarded on appeal.