G.R. No. L-21287. August 31, 1966
TESTATE ESTATE OF AMADEO MATUTE OLAVE, CELESTINO ALONSO, ADMINISTRATOR, IN RE: INCIDENT ON THE RETAINING LIEN OF ATTY. ANTONIO ENRILE INTON, OPPOSITOR AND APPELLANT, VS. JULIAN …
BARRERA, J.:
(Testate Estate of Amadeo Matute Olave) still pending final termination
in the Court of First Instance of Manila.
On January 3, 1963, Julian Villanueva Matute, as newly-appointed
co-administrator of the Testate Estate of Amadeo Matute Olave, filed a
motion with the probate court, praying that Atty. Antonio Enrile Inton
be ordered to surrender and deliver to him (movant) all certificates of
title, plans, documents, and papers belonging to the Estate and which
ware in the possession of said lawyer, in order that they may be kept
in the office of the Estate in Davao City and be ready for inspection
should the management of the properties require it. This motion was
opposed by Atty. Antonio Enrile Inton, who alleged that he was the
counsel for the Estate and the former administrator, Celestino Alonzo;
that for said legal services, he filed with the probate court on
October 10, 1962, a claim for payment of his lawful fees from November
26, 1958 to October 26, 1962, [1]
at the rate of P1,200.00 a month or a total of P72,500.00, excluding
the compensation for handling the defense against various claims filed
in the testate proceeding, which should be on quantum meruit basis; that he came into possession of 20 certificates of title [2]
in the course of his work as counsel for the Estate and the former
administrator. Oppositor, therefore, contended that until his claim for
attorneys’ fees is settled, he will be exercising a retaining lien over
the aforesaid documents belonging to the Estate. After the issues were,
joined, the court a quo by order of January 7, 1963, granted the motion
of the co-administrator and ordered Atty. Enrile Inton to deliver the
19 documents listed in the Opposition and admitted by the latter to
belong to the Estate. Atty. Enrile Inton filed the present appeal,
which calls only for the determination of whether or not he has the
right to retain the titles and documents in question, until his claim
for attorneys’ fees is finally settled.
Section 37 of Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court provides:
“SEC. 37. Attorneys’ liens.– An attorney
shall have a lien upon the funds, documents and papers of his client
which have lawfully come into his possession and may retain the same
until his lawful fees and disbursements have been paid, x x x.”
Thereunder, there is no question that a lawyer has a retaining lien upon the funds, documents and papers of his client that may have come lawfully into his possession, until his lawful fees are duly paid.
In the present case, it is not disputed that appellant was
commissioned to render, as in fact he did render, legal services to the
former administrator of the Estate, Celestino Alonzo. Thus, said
administrator certified:
“SEPAN TODOS POR LA PRESENTE:
“Sirvase
tomar nota que efectivo el dia 15 de Noviembre de 1958 he nombrado el
Abogado Sr. Antonio Enrile Inton como mi unico abogado por el
Administrador en Davao de Amadeo Matute Olave, para representarme en el
procedimiento y demas otros litigios, en donde la Testamentaria Amadeo
Matute Olave se concierne. x x x.”
It is clear therefrom that appellant was appointed by Alonzo as his
lawyer, to represent him in all suits affecting the Estate under his
trust. This appointment, however, was not in pursuance to any court
order, nor was it approved by the probate court. It was an act personal
to the administrator. The creation of the professional relationship
between appellant and the administrator did not, therefore, make the
Estate also a client of the said lawyer.
And, it may be stated in this connection, that for legal services
rendered to the administrator, the estate under administration cannot
be directly held liable for payment of the corresponding attorneys’
fees. In the case of Uy Tioco v. Imperial and Panis, [3] this Court ruled thus:
“x x x The services for which fees are claimed are
supposed to have been rendered to the executor or administrator to
assist him in the execution of his trust. The attorney can therefore
not hold the estate directly liable for his fees; such fees are allowed
to the executor or administrator and not to the attorney. The liability
for the payment rests on the executor or administrator, but if the fees
paid are beneficial to the estate and reasonable, he is entitled to
reimbursement from the estate. Such payments should be included in his
accounts and the reimbursement therefor settled upon the notice
prescribed in section 682 of the Code of Civil Procedure. [4]
(See Church on Probate Law and Practice, pp. 1570-1588 and authorities
there cited; Woerner on the American Law of Administration, 2d ed.,
sections 515 and 516.)”
It follows as a necessary consequence that the lawyer for the
administrator or executor cannot claim to have a retaining lien over
any funds, papers, or documents belonging to the Estate, even if these
properties may have come into his possession in the course of his work
as such counsel for the administrator.
WHEREFORE, the order appealed from is hereby affirmed, with costs against the appellant.
SO ORDERED.
Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar, Sanchez, and Ruiz Castro, JJ., concur.
[1] Date when administrator Celestino Alonzo was removed from such office by order of the probate court.
[2] Of these titles, Oppositor claims that one does not belong to the Estate.
[3] 53 Phil. 803, cited with approval in Albino v. Borromeo, G.R. No. L-19722, Feb. 28, 1966.
[4] Now Section 10, Rule 85, Revised Rules of Court.