G.R. No. 110271 February 28, 1994
RODOLFO R. PAULINO, petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS and ASTERIA S. CHUNACO, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Rodolfo R. Paulino served as counsel for the oppositor in Special Proceeding No. 1450, a guardianship case, by virtue of a contract signed by the mother of the private respondent, Asteria S. Chunaco, who was then a minor. The contract provided for a contingent fee of 35% of the amount received by the private respondent from the case. Paulino filed a petition to confirm payment of attorney’s fees, claiming 35% of P207,539.39 already received by Chunaco, amounting to P72,638.78. The private respondent opposed, arguing no attorney-client relationship and that the contract was unenforceable as it was signed by her mother who was not her legal guardian. The Regional Trial Court of Legaspi City, Branch I, issued an order on August 12, 1991, awarding P52,958.98 as attorney’s fees. After a motion for reconsideration was denied, the trial court, on December 4, 1991, granted a motion for payment of additional attorney’s fees, bringing the total award to P105,491.81. The private respondent initially filed a notice of appeal but withdrew it and instead filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals. The trial court granted an ex parte motion for execution on December 18, 1991, issuing a writ for P105,491.81. The Court of Appeals granted the petition for certiorari, set aside the trial court’s order, and ruled that the writ of execution for P105,491.81 was issued with grave abuse of discretion since the December 4, 1991 order only awarded P52,958.98.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in granting the petition for certiorari and setting aside the writ of execution issued by the trial court for the total amount of attorney’s fees.

RULING

The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition, SET ASIDE the decision of the Court of Appeals, and REINSTATED the writ of execution, but MODIFIED the total award of attorney’s fees to P104,493.24. The Court held that the petition for certiorari was an appropriate remedy to question an order of execution that allegedly varied the terms of the judgment. It found no inconsistency between the order of December 4, 1991, and the writ of execution, as the order called for payment of all attorney’s fees due, including those awarded on August 12, 1991, and the additional award on December 4, 1991. However, upon recomputation, the Court found that the sum of the two awards was P104,493.24 (P52,958.98 from August 12, 1991, and P51,533.8355 from December 4, 1991), not P105,491.81 as indicated in the writ. Thus, the writ was reinstated with the corrected amount.