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 Ephraim Serquina, acting as counsel and named executor in the will of Carmelita Farlin, successfully petitioned for its probate in Sp. Proc. No. 127-87, which was uncontested and allowed by the respondent court. Subsequently, Serquina filed a “motion for attorney’s fees” against the petitioner-heirs, claiming an agreed fee of P68,000. The court treated this motion as a complaint, summoning the heirs to answer. The heirs contested, asserting the agreed fee was only P7,000, which they had paid. After pre-trial, the court awarded Serquina P65,000 as attorney’s fees, creating a lien on the estate properties.
The heirs filed a notice of appeal. The respondent court, however, denied the appeal for the heirs’ failure to file a record on appeal and later granted execution of its award. The petitioners challenged the decision and subsequent orders as void, arguing the court never acquired jurisdiction due to non-payment of docket fees for the motion, abused its discretion in denying the appeal for lack of a record on appeal, and erroneously awarded attorney’s fees contrary to the Rules of Court.

ISSUE

The primary issues were: (1) whether the respondent court acquired jurisdiction over the motion for attorney’s fees despite non-payment of docket fees; (2) whether the court gravely abused its discretion in denying the notice of 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. On the first issue, the Court held that the motion for attorney’s fees, though an incident of the main special proceeding, was in substance a separate action for collection of fees by a lawyer against his clients. Jurisdiction over such a claim is acquired only upon payment of the prescribed docket fee. The failure to pay these fees rendered the proceedings, including the decision, void for lack of jurisdiction.
On the second issue, the Court acknowledged that a record on appeal is generally required for appeals from incidents in a special proceeding. However, citing exceptional circumstances and in the interest of justice—such as the probate court’s own initial belief that a record on appeal was unnecessary—the dismissal of the appeal was deemed too harsh. The Court emphasized its policy to afford litigants the amplest opportunity for a just disposition of their case.
On the third issue, the Court found the awarded amount of P65,000 unreasonable. Examining the services rendered—which included routine probate procedures for an uncontested will, assistance in transferring titles, and settling estate taxes—the Court concluded these were ordinary legal services. Applying the principle of quantum meruit, and considering the P6,000 already received by Serquina, the Court modified the award. It ordered the petitioners to pay an additional P9,000 directly to Serquina, explicitly stating this fee was not recoverable from the estate. The temporary restraining order was made permanent.