G.R. No. L-24397 June 29, 1968
THE PROVINCE OF MISAMIS OCCIDENTAL, petitioner, vs. HON. ALFREDO CATOLICO, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Misamis Occidental, and ATTY. RUFINO J. ABADIES, respondents.

FACTS

The petitioner, Province of Misamis Occidental, was declared the sole and absolute owner of the Oroquieta waterworks system in a decision dated April 30, 1963, in a case it filed against the National Waterworks and Sewerage Authority. The original counsel, the provincial fiscal, withdrew and was substituted by respondent Atty. Rufino J. Abadies, with the proviso that the new counsel “will not be paid attorney’s fees.” After winning the case, respondent Abadies filed a motion on May 8, 1964, seeking payment of P5,000.00 as attorney’s fees based on a provincial resolution. Respondent Judge Alfredo Catolico granted the motion. Petitioner filed a notice of appeal, appeal bond, and record on appeal on July 4, 1964. Subsequently, respondent Abadies filed a motion for reconsideration seeking an increase of his fees to P25,000.00 based on quantum meruit. In an order dated September 12, 1964, respondent Judge increased the attorney’s fees to P50,000.00. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration on October 2, 1964, which was denied on October 24, 1964. On November 6, 1964, petitioner reiterated its intention to appeal and filed a new notice of appeal on November 7, 1964. Respondent Judge disallowed the record on appeal in an order dated November 14, 1964. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied on January 23, 1965, prompting this petition for mandamus to compel the allowance of its appeal.

ISSUE

Whether the writ of mandamus is proper to compel respondent Judge to allow the petitioner’s appeal from the order fixing attorney’s fees at P50,000.00.

RULING

Yes, the writ of mandamus is granted. The Supreme Court held that petitioner’s appeal was duly perfected. The motion for reconsideration filed on October 2, 1964, from the September 12, 1964 order, was not pro forma. As a government entity, petitioner should not be penalized for any perceived inadequacy in its counsel’s pleading. The right to appeal is a substantial right, and mandamus lies to correct the respondent Judge’s refusal to give due course to the appeal. The objections raised by respondent Abadies—that the order had become final and executory, that an execution had been issued, and that the petition was filed beyond a reasonable period—were found lacking in merit. The Court cited the policy not to deny the writ if it would deprive a party of a substantial right and leave them without a remedy. Costs were imposed on respondent Abadies.