G.R. No. 109219 March 11, 1994
SUSANITA E. MENDOZA-PARKER, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, RODOLFO TAN NG and TERESITA S. RIOSA, respondents.

FACTS

Private respondents Rodolfo Tan Ng and Teresita S. Riosa filed a collection and foreclosure case against Demetrio G. Alcaras and Julieta Alcaras. Petitioner Susanita E. Mendoza-Parker substituted as their counsel after the pre-trial stage. Petitioner filed a motion for summary judgment, which was granted, resulting in a judgment in favor of private respondents, including an award of P10,000.00 as attorney’s fees. Subsequently, petitioner moved to withdraw her appearance and demanded P73,199.75 as her contingent fees (15% of the monetary award). Private respondents refused, offering P20,000.00. The trial court approved petitioner’s withdrawal and ordered private respondents to deposit P73,119.75 as attorney’s fees. Private respondents filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied. They then questioned the trial court’s orders before the Court of Appeals via a petition under Rule 65. The Court of Appeals modified the award, fixing petitioner’s attorney’s fees at P30,000.00 in addition to the P10,000.00 already awarded in the summary judgment. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting this petition for review.

ISSUE

1. Whether the Court of Appeals correctly gave due course to private respondents’ petition under Rule 65.
2. Whether the Court of Appeals can interfere with the trial court’s orders fixing attorney’s fees and whether the amount awarded is reasonable.

RULING

1. Yes, the Court of Appeals correctly gave due course to the petition under Rule 65. An appeal under Rule 45 is not the proper remedy for questioning the trial court’s orders issued after the summary judgment had become final. Rule 45 applies only to appeals from the Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court. The orders in question were issued during the execution stage of the foreclosure proceedings, and an ordinary appeal was no longer available. Under the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980, the Court of Appeals has jurisdiction to issue special writs “whether or not in aid of its appellate jurisdiction.” The case cited by petitioner, Quirino v. Gorospe, involves a special proceeding (settlement of an estate) where multiple appeals are allowed, which is not applicable here.
2. Yes, the Court of Appeals can interfere with the trial court’s orders fixing attorney’s fees to determine their reasonableness. The Court of Appeals found no sufficient evidence to establish an agreement between petitioner and private respondents regarding the amount of attorney’s fees. In the absence of such an agreement, courts are authorized to determine reasonable compensation. Even with an agreement, courts have the power to disregard it if the amount is unreasonable. The Court of Appeals properly considered various factors, such as the services rendered, the responsibility imposed, the amount involved, the skill required, the professional standing of the attorney, and the results secured. In this case, petitioner took over after pre-trial, filed only a motion for summary judgment and an opposition to a motion for reconsideration, and no full trial was held as the defendants admitted their indebtedness. Thus, the trial court’s award was excessive, and the Court of Appeals’ reduction to P30,000.00 was reasonable. The petition is denied.