G.R. No. 191641 September 2, 2015
EDMUNDO NAVAREZ, Petitioner, vs. ATTY. MANUEL ABROGAR III, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Edmundo Navarez engaged the services of Atty. Manuel Abrogar III and his law firm as collaborating counsel in a settlement of estate case (Sp. Proc. No. Q-05-59112) under a Retainer Agreement dated July 30, 2007. The agreement stipulated an acceptance fee, a success fee of 2% of Navarez’s share in the estate, and appearance fees. On September 2, 2008, Navarez terminated Atty. Abrogar’s services and delivered a check for P220,107.51, purportedly representing a portion of the fees. Atty. Abrogar filed a Motion to Enter into the Records his attorney’s lien pursuant to Rule 138, Section 37 of the Rules of Court. The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 83, Quezon City, granted the motion in an Order dated January 21, 2009, directing Navarez to pay 7.5% of P11,196,675.05 as attorney’s fees and administrative expenses. Navarez’s motion for reconsideration was denied, and a writ of execution was issued. The Court of Appeals (CA) dismissed Navarez’s petition for certiorari challenging the RTC Order. Navarez then filed a petition with the Supreme Court, erroneously styled as a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 instead of a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the Regional Trial Court did not commit grave abuse of discretion in ordering the payment of attorney’s fees to Atty. Abrogar.

RULING

The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition, REVERSED the CA decision, and ANNULLED and SET ASIDE the RTC Order. The Court treated the erroneously filed petition for certiorari as a petition for review on certiorari in the interest of justice. The RTC committed grave abuse of discretion for three reasons: First, it ordered the enforcement of the attorney’s charging lien without conducting a hearing to ascertain the proper amount, thereby denying Navarez his right to due process, as the client contested the amount and claimed advance payments. Second, the RTC acted without jurisdiction in enforcing the lien and ordering payment because Atty. Abrogar did not pay the required docket fees for such an action for a sum of money. The payment of docket fees is mandatory for a court to acquire jurisdiction. Third, the enforcement of a charging lien is premature until a final and executory money judgment has been rendered in favor of the client in the main case. The RTC also prematurely issued a writ of execution before the lapse of the reglementary period for appeal.