G.R. No. L-26137 September 23, 1968
EUGENIO V. VILLANUEVA, JR., petitioner, vs. HON. JOSE R. QUERUBIN, in his capacity as Judge of the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental, ELVIRA GUANZON and MIGUEL MATTI, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Eugenio V. Villanueva, Jr., an attorney, was engaged by respondents Elvira Guanzon and Miguel Matti to file an injunction case (Civil Case No. 7725) against certain provincial officials. During the trial, petitioner acquired and presented various documents as exhibits. While the trial was in progress and before his attorney’s fees were fixed and paid, his clients dismissed him in open court. Petitioner filed an opposition to his dismissal. Without resolving this opposition, respondent Judge issued an order on June 1, 1966, requiring petitioner to deposit the documentary exhibits with the Clerk of Court. Petitioner manifested that the documents were in Manila and requested time to retrieve them. Respondent Judge orally denied the motion and initially ordered petitioner’s incarceration, later allowing him to go free with a warning to produce the documents within 18 hours. When petitioner failed to do so, respondent Judge issued an order on June 3, 1966, declaring him in contempt and ordering his arrest. Petitioner filed this petition for certiorari to annul these orders, for prohibition to restrain their enforcement, and for mandamus to compel recognition of his alleged retaining lien over the documents until his fees are paid. Respondent Judge explained that the documents were public records presented as exhibits, and petitioner was allowed custody with the understanding they be made available when needed by the court. His defiance of the orders to produce them constituted contempt.

ISSUE

Whether the petitioner attorney has a retaining lien over the public documents he presented as exhibits in court, which justifies his refusal to surrender them to the court upon order, based on his claim for unpaid attorney’s fees.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. The Court held that no certiorari lies as the respondent Judge’s orders were not issued without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. Prohibition does not lie to restrain their enforcement, and mandamus is not warranted to compel recognition of a retaining lien over the disputed documents. The Court ruled that the attorney’s retaining lien does not apply to the documents in question because they are public in character and were introduced as exhibits in court, thus properly subject to the court’s custody. The Court cited the doctrine from Rustia v. Abeto, which recognizes an attorney’s right to retain possession of a client’s documents or money until payment of fees, but also emphasizes the court’s power to require delivery of papers if necessary to prevent embarrassment to the client, provided the client files proper security. The Court stressed that allowing an attorney to defy court orders based on an erroneous claim of a retaining lien over court exhibits would injure the fair and efficient administration of justice. The respondent Judge acted within his jurisdiction in issuing the orders to produce the exhibits and in citing petitioner for contempt for his defiance.