GR L 21287; (August, 1966) (Digest)
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, vs. JULIAN VILLANUEVA MATUTE, co-administrator-appellee.
FACTS
This is an incident from Special Proceeding No. 25878 (Testate Estate of Amadeo Matute Olave). On January 3, 1963, co-administrator Julian Villanueva Matute filed a motion in the probate court praying that Atty. Antonio Enrile Inton be ordered to surrender and deliver all certificates of title, plans, documents, and papers belonging to the Estate in his possession. Atty. Inton opposed the motion, alleging he was counsel for the Estate and the former administrator, Celestino Alonzo. He claimed he came into possession of 20 certificates of title in the course of his work and had filed a claim for attorneys’ fees for services rendered from November 26, 1958, to October 26, 1962. He contended he had a retaining lien over the documents until his claim was settled. The probate court granted the co-administrator’s motion and ordered Atty. Inton to deliver the documents. Atty. Inton appealed.
ISSUE
Whether or not Atty. Antonio Enrile Inton has the right to retain the titles and documents belonging to the Estate until his claim for attorneys’ fees is finally settled.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the probate court. The Court held that while Section 37, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court grants an attorney a retaining lien upon the funds, documents, and papers of his client which have lawfully come into his possession, this lien applies only to the client who engaged the attorney’s services. In this case, Atty. Inton was appointed as counsel by the former administrator, Celestino Alonzo, through a personal act, without a court order or approval from the probate court. This professional relationship was between the lawyer and the administrator, not between the lawyer and the Estate itself. Citing Uy Tioco v. Imperial and Panis, the Court ruled that for legal services rendered to an administrator, the estate cannot be held directly liable for the attorneys’ fees; the liability rests with the administrator. Consequently, a lawyer for an administrator cannot claim a retaining lien over properties belonging to the estate, even if they came into his possession during his engagement. The order for Atty. Inton to deliver the documents to the co-administrator was proper.