GR L 12905 1958 (Digest)
G.R. No. L-12905; February 26, 1959
ELENA PERALTA VDA. DE CAIÑA, ET AL., petitioners, vs. HON. GUSTAVO VICTORIANO, ET AL., respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners are the widow and children of the late Valeriana Caiña, owners of a parcel of land covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 51585. Respondent Flaviano T. Dalisay, Jr. was the attorney for petitioner Elena Peralta Vda. de Caiña in an ejectment case (Civil Case No. 3875) before the Court of First Instance of Rizal, which resulted in a final and executory judgment in favor of his client. Claiming unpaid attorney’s fees of P2,020, respondent Dalisay filed a motion in the same ejectment case for the annotation of his attorney’s lien on the back of TCT No. 51585. The respondent judge granted the motion and ordered petitioners to surrender their owner’s duplicate certificate of title for annotation. Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, alleging lack of notice and hearing, which was denied. They then filed this petition for certiorari to annul the respondent judge’s order.
ISSUE
Whether the attorney’s lien of respondent Dalisay for services rendered in the ejectment case can be ordered annotated on the back of the petitioners’ Transfer Certificate of Title.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court granted the petition and set aside the order of the respondent judge. The Court distinguished between two kinds of attorney’s liens: the retaining lien (the right to retain client’s funds, documents, and papers in the attorney’s possession until fees are paid) and the charging lien (the right upon judgments for the payment of money secured by the attorney in the litigation). Under Section 33, Rule 127 (now Section 37, Rule 138), a charging lien takes legal effect only from and after notice of the lien has been entered in the record and served on the adverse party. In this case, respondent Dalisay had already caused the statement of his claim to be entered in the record of the ejectment case, which fulfilled the requirement. His lien was a personal claim enforceable by a writ of execution against the judgment, not a lien that attached to the property itself. The respondent judge exceeded his authority by ordering the annotation of the lien on the certificate of title, as such annotation is beyond the scope of a charging lien and the court’s power in the ejectment case.