GR 46102; (August, 1938) (Digest)
G.R. No. 46102 ; August 29, 1938
JOSE RIWING, petitioner, vs. JOSE O. VERA, Judge of First Instance of Manila, GERONIMO LASALA, and MARCIANA LEE, respondents.
FACTS
Respondent Marciana Lee, through her counsel Geronimo Lasala, filed a complaint for alimony against her husband, petitioner Jose Riwing, in the Court of First Instance of Manila. Due to Riwing’s absence from the Philippines, summons was served by publication. After Riwing failed to appear, the court declared him in default, heard Lee’s evidence, and rendered judgment ordering Riwing to provide a monthly allowance of P200. The judgment became final and executory, and a writ of execution was issued. Before the attached properties could be sold, Riwing and Lee jointly moved to terminate the case, stating they had amicably settled and desired to reconcile. The court initially granted the motion and set aside the execution. However, upon motion by counsel Lasala, who opposed the settlement as fraudulent and done without his consent, the court reconsidered and ordered Riwing to pay Lasala attorney’s fees of P1,000 (less a partial payment). Riwing sought reconsideration, which was denied, prompting this petition for certiorari to annul the orders granting execution and fixing attorney’s fees.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court acted without or in excess of jurisdiction in issuing the orders granting execution and fixing attorney’s fees, notwithstanding the amicable settlement between the spouses.
RULING
No. The petition is denied. The Supreme Court held that while spouses may amicably settle marital disputes to restore conjugal harmony, such settlement cannot deprive the wife’s attorney of the fees to which he is entitled. Citing Mercado vs. Ostrand and Ruiz, the Court affirmed that a husband who makes it necessary for his wife to resort to court to enforce her right to support may be required to pay the necessary litigation expenses, including reasonable attorney’s fees. The inclusion of attorney’s fees in the bill of costs may have been irregular, but this does not defeat the attorney’s claim. The respondent judge acted within his jurisdiction in allowing reasonable attorney’s fees despite the amicable settlement between the spouses.
AI Generated by Armztrong.