G.R. No. 86250 February 26, 1990
ALBERTO F. LACSON, EDITHA F. LACSON, ROMEO F. LACSON and ZENA F. VELASCO, petitioners, vs. HON. LUIS R. REYES, in his capacity as presiding judge of Branch 22 of the Regional Trial Court of Cavite, Branch 22, and/or Multiple Sala, Imus, Cavite, and EPHRAIM J. SERQUINA, respondents.

FACTS

Private respondent Atty. Ephraim Serquina successfully petitioned for the probate of the will of Carmelita Farlin, acting as counsel for the petitioner-heirs and as named executor. The will was allowed without opposition. Subsequently, Serquina filed a “Motion for Attorney’s Fees” against the heirs in the same probate proceeding, claiming an agreed fee of P68,000. The heirs contested, alleging the agreed sum was only P7,000, which they had paid. The trial court treated the motion as a separate complaint, summoned the heirs, and after trial, awarded Serquina P65,000 as attorney’s fees, making it a lien on the estate properties.
The heirs filed a notice of appeal. The trial court, however, denied the appeal for their failure to file a record on appeal, deemed the decision final, and granted execution. The petitioners assailed the decision and orders as void, arguing the court never acquired jurisdiction over the motion due to non-payment of docket fees, abused its discretion in denying the appeal for lack of a record on appeal, and erroneously awarded fees contrary to the Rules of Court.

ISSUE

The core issues were: (1) whether the trial court acquired jurisdiction over the motion for attorney’s fees despite non-payment of docket fees; (2) whether it gravely abused its discretion in denying the appeal for failure to file a record on appeal; and (3) whether the award of attorney’s fees was proper.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition, ruling for the petitioners on jurisdictional grounds and modifying the award on quantum meruit. First, the Court held the trial court never acquired jurisdiction. While payment of docket fees is mandatory for a court to acquire jurisdiction, the rule admits exceptions where there is no intent to defraud. Here, Serquina’s motion, though an incident of the probate, was treated as a separate action for collection against the heirs. Consequently, it required payment of docket fees as an independent claim. Since no fees were paid, the court acted without jurisdiction, rendering its decision and orders null and void.
Second, on the denial of the appeal, the Court clarified that for appeals arising from an incident in a special proceeding, a record on appeal is generally required. The trial court’s denial was technically correct. However, the Court noted exceptional circumstances—such as the probate court’s own initial belief that a record on appeal was unnecessary—that could warrant reinstatement in the interest of justice. This point, however, was rendered moot by the resolution of the jurisdictional issue.
Third, on the merits of the fee award, the Court found the claimed and awarded amounts excessive. Examining Serquina’s services—which included an uncontested probate and routine post-probate acts like tax payments and title transfers—the Court held they did not justify a fee of P68,000 or P65,000. Applying quantum meruit, and considering the P6,000-Serquina had already received, the Court deemed an additional P9,000 as reasonable compensation. The total award was thus set at P15,000, payable directly by the heirs, not chargeable against the estate. The temporary restraining order was made permanent.