GR 34782; (February, 1931) (Digest)
G.R. No. 34782; February 13, 1931
OTTO GMUR, INC., petitioner, vs. EULOGIO P. REVILLA, Judge of First Instance of Manila, ET AL., respondents.
FACTS
Lim Cuan Sy & Co. held multiple insurance policies on a stock of goods that was destroyed by fire. After the insurers refused payment, the insured filed six separate actions to recover on the policies. The parties agreed to try one case as a test case, with the others to be decided based on its outcome. The test case was litigated up to the Supreme Court, which affirmed a judgment in favor of the plaintiff. After the final judgment, the insurance proceeds were paid into court. Meanwhile, Lim Cuan Sy & Co. became insolvent, and its assignee was appointed. The petitioners, Otto Gmur, Inc. and F. E. Zuellig, Inc., claimed to be assignees of some of the insurance policies and sought to intervene in the lower court proceedings for the sole purpose of being heard on the determination of the attorney’s fees to be awarded to the successful plaintiffs’ counsel, Jose P. Laurel. The respondent judge denied their motion to intervene, prompting the petitioners to file these mandamus applications to compel the judge to allow their intervention.
ISSUE
Whether the petitioners, as alleged assignees of the insurance policies, have a right to intervene in the proceedings for the determination of attorney’s fees.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court granted the writs of mandamus, directing the respondent judge to allow the petitioners to intervene. The Court held that the petitioners, as alleged assignees of the insurance policies, became the real parties in interest upon the assignment. As such, they have a right to be heard on the question of attorney’s fees because they would ultimately bear the burden of paying those fees from the insurance proceeds. The Court emphasized that where intervention is necessary to protect an interest in the subject matter of the litigation, it is an abuse of discretion to deny it. The fact that the motion to intervene was filed after the test case was decided and the funds were deposited in court does not bar intervention, as the proceeding to fix attorney’s fees is a supplemental matter separate from the main litigation on the merits. The petitioners are entitled to their day in court to contest the reasonableness of the attorney’s fees claimed.
AI Generated by Armztrong.