G.R. No. L-27394 July 31, 1970
ARMANDO V. AMPIL, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE JUDGE CORAZON JULIANO-AGRAVA, ANTONIO M. PEREZ and BENIGNO PEREZ Y TUASON, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Armando V. Ampil was the counsel for Angela Tuason de Perez in several cases, including a guardianship case filed against her by her husband and son, respondents Antonio M. Perez and Benigno Perez y Tuason. The cases were ultimately dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. In November 1966, Angela terminated Ampil’s services without paying his professional fees. Ampil asserted a retaining lien over three certificates of title (T.C.T. Nos. 24927, 24928, and 34769) entrusted to him by Angela during his employment. Subsequently, in a separate Supreme Court case (G.R. No. L-19711), a compromise agreement was approved wherein Angela ceded the properties covered by these titles to the respondents. The respondents filed a motion for partial execution in the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court to compel Ampil to surrender the titles. Respondent Judge Corazon Juliano-Agrav granted the motion, ordering Ampil to deliver the titles, holding that any attorney’s lien should be enforced against the client, not against the respondents. Ampil filed this certiorari action to annul that order.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent judge acted with grave abuse of discretion in ordering petitioner Ampil to surrender the certificates of title to the respondents, notwithstanding his assertion of a retaining lien for unpaid attorney’s fees.

RULING

Yes. The writ of certiorari is granted and the order of the respondent court is declared null and void and set aside. The Supreme Court upheld Ampil’s retaining lien under Rule 138, Section 37 of the Rules of Court. An attorney has a lien upon the documents and papers of his client which have lawfully come into his possession and may retain them until his lawful fees and disbursements are paid. This retaining lien is a general lien for the balance of the account and applies regardless of the outcome of the cases handled. The Court emphasized that this right is incontestable and courts are bound to protect it. The inconvenience caused to the client or adverse parties is the essence of the lien. If surrender of the documents is indispensable, the court may require the client or claimant to first file adequate security for the lawyer’s compensation. The Court found that the elements for the lien were present: a lawyer-client relationship, lawful possession of the documents, and an unsatisfied claim for fees. The fact that the titles were ceded to the respondents via a compromise agreement did not extinguish the lien, as the lien attaches to the documents themselves. The respondents’ remedy is to pay the fees or post a bond.