G.R. No. 191470; January 26, 2015.
AUGUSTO M. AQUINO, Petitioner, vs. HON. ISMAEL P. CASABAR, as Presiding Judge Regional Trial Court-Guimba, Nueva Ecija, Branch 33 and MA. ALA F. DOMINGO and MARGARITA IRENE F. DOMINGO, substituting Heirs of the deceased ANGEL T. DOMINGO, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Atty. Augusto M. Aquino was verbally contracted on a contingency fee basis by Atty. Angel T. Domingo (now deceased) to represent him in Agrarian Case No. 1217-G, a case for determination of just compensation for the expropriation of his ricelands by the DAR. The initial valuation was ₱484,236.27. Through petitioner’s representation, the RTC/SAC fixed just compensation at ₱2,459,319.70, an increase of ₱1,975,083.43. This decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals and later by the Supreme Court, becoming final and executory on March 3, 2009. Atty. Domingo died, and his heirs (private respondents) were substituted. Private respondents, through new counsel, filed a Motion for Execution. Petitioner then filed a Motion for Approval of Charging Attorney’s Lien and for Order of Payment, claiming 30% of the increase as contingent fee. Private respondents moved to dismiss/expunge the motion. The public respondent Judge denied petitioner’s motion, ruling the court lost jurisdiction to approve the lien after the judgment became final and executory. Petitioner assailed this Order via certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion for approval of attorney’s lien on the ground that it lost jurisdiction over the case after the judgment became final and executory.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioner. The trial court committed reversible error. A claim for attorney’s fees for professional services rendered may be asserted either in the very action in which the services were rendered or in a separate action. Filing the motion in the same case is proper as it is an incident to the main case, promotes the rule against multiplicity of suits, and the court is already familiar with the nature and extent of the legal services. The court does not lose jurisdiction over such an incident merely because the main judgment has become final and executory. Furthermore, the non-payment of docket fees for the motion does not divest the court of jurisdiction, as any unpaid fees can be considered a lien on the judgment. The Court granted the Motion for Approval of Charging Attorney’s Lien and, based on quantum meruit, set attorney’s fees at fifteen percent (15%) of the increase in the valuation awarded.