MARIA REYES DE TOLENTINO, ASSISTED BY HER HUSBAND LUCIO TOLENTINO, PETITIONERS, VS. HON. GODOFREDO ESCALONA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE, BRANCH I, COURT OF FIRST INSTANC…

Tolentino versus Escalona

The Case

This is Tolentino versus Escalona, an original petition for certiorari filed by Maria Reyes de Tolentino and her husband Lucio Tolentino against Judge Godofredo Escalona, the sheriff, and their former counsel, Attorney Sinforoso Anota. The Tolentinos asked the Supreme Court to annul the trial court's orders fixing their lawyer's fees, the writ of execution, the sheriff's notice of sale, and the public auction sale of their land. The case matters because it settles two enduring rules: that certiorari cannot substitute for a lost appeal, and that a court which has jurisdiction over the main action may award attorney's fees as an incident of that case, even if the fees fall below its minimum jurisdictional amount.

Procedural History

The Tolentinos sued the spouses Llamas in the Court of First Instance of Leyte, Branch One, seeking reformation of a deed. The trial court, on August 2, 1962, rendered judgment substantially in their favor. The Llamases appealed to the Court of Appeals, which on March 12, 1964, modified the judgment, declaring the deed a pacto de retro sale but giving the Tolentinos thirty days from finality to redeem the property for 2,000 pesos. The Tolentinos redeemed within that period.

Later, Attorney Anota filed a petition in the same civil case for payment of his attorney's fees. Judge Escalona fixed the fees at 4,000 pesos and made them a lien on the lot. The Tolentinos sought reconsideration; the judge amended his order to reduce the fees to 2,000 pesos only if judicially consigned by a fixed date, otherwise the original order would stand. The Tolentinos did not consign. They filed further motions, the judge directed execution, and the land was sold at public auction to Attorney Anota. Over eleven months later, the Tolentinos commenced this original action for certiorari in the Supreme Court.

Facts

Maria Reyes de Tolentino owned a parcel of land of 720 square meters. She and her husband executed a deed purporting to be a pacto de retro sale of the land to the spouses Gaspar Llamas and Encarnacion Enriquez de Llamas. The Tolentinos claimed the true agreement was merely an equitable mortgage securing a loan of 2,000 pesos. Represented by Attorney Anota, they sued for reformation of the deed and won in the trial court.

On appeal, with Attorneys Anota and Fernandez appearing for them, the Court of Appeals modified the judgment. It declared the deed a pacto de retro sale but gave Mrs. Tolentino thirty days from finality to redeem the property for 2,000 pesos, failing which she would lose all right of redemption. She redeemed within the period.

Thereafter, Attorney Anota filed a petition in the same civil case claiming attorney's fees of 6,480 pesos, or alternatively one third of the lot. The Tolentinos objected and asked the court to fix the amount. Judge Escalona fixed the fees at 4,000 pesos and made them a lien on the lot. When the Tolentinos moved for reconsideration, the judge amended the order to allow reduction to 2,000 pesos only upon judicial consignation by a stated date. No consignation was made. Instead, the Tolentinos filed further motions for deductions and reduction, while Anota moved for execution. The judge directed execution, the sheriff published a notice of sale, and the land was sold at public auction to Attorney Anota in full satisfaction of the fees and expenses.

Issues

• Whether or not certiorari is the proper remedy where the petitioners failed to appeal from the contested orders.
• Whether or not the trial court had jurisdiction to entertain the claim for attorney's fees in the same case, even if the amount claimed is below its minimum original jurisdiction.
• Whether or not the petitioners are estopped from assailing the court's action on the claim for attorney's fees.

Applicable Provisions

The decision applies the rule on attorney's fees as an incident of the main action, as illustrated in the jurisprudence it cites. The Court quoted from Palanca versus Pecson:

That the application to fix the attorney's fees is usually made before the court which renders the judgment or may be enforced in an independent and separate action.

This passage bears on the case because it recognizes that the court which rendered judgment may itself pass upon the lawyer's fees.

The Court also quoted with approval from Dahlke versus Viña, citing Corpus Juris:

Thus in some jurisdictions the attorney's lien upon a judgment may be established and enforced upon an application to the court in the case wherein the judgment was rendered, and, although it is sometimes held that this lien may be enforced in an independent action by the attorney, yet ordinarily a motion in the cause is the proper remedy.

This supports the practice of enforcing an attorney's lien by motion in the very case where the services were rendered.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that certiorari was not available. The Tolentinos could have appealed from the contested orders, and no plausible reason was shown that an appeal would not have been a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy. Having failed to appeal, they may not use certiorari to offset the adverse effects of their omission.

On the second issue, the Court held that the question of whether a particular issue may be taken up in a given case is generally addressed to the sound discretion of the court, exercised in the interest of justice, and does not affect jurisdiction unless there is a denial of due process, which did not exist here. It further held that a claim for attorney's fees may be asserted either in the very action in which the services were rendered or in a separate action. If the first alternative is chosen, the court may pass upon the claim even if its amount is less than the minimum prescribed by law for its jurisdiction, so long as the main action is within its jurisdiction, upon the theory that the right to recover attorney's fees is but an incident of the case. The Court quoted from Missouri, Kansas and Texas Railway Company of Texas versus Bacon:

It has always been the rule in Texas that when a court once obtains jurisdiction over the subject-matter it has the power to adjust all rights growing out of it, even as to the demands that are not, when standing alone, sufficient to give the court jurisdiction.

On the third issue, the Court held that the Tolentinos were in estoppel. They had not merely failed to object to the court's exercise of jurisdiction over the claim; they had asked the court to fix the amount collectible by Anota, later to reduce it, and to grant other affirmative relief in connection therewith.

Doctrine

First, the extraordinary writ of certiorari will not lie where the party had a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy by appeal and failed to use it. A party cannot resort to certiorari to cure the consequences of a lost appeal.

Second, a claim for attorney's fees may be asserted either in the very action in which the services were rendered or in a separate action. If asserted in the same action, the court may pass upon it even if the amount is below the minimum prescribed for its jurisdiction, provided the main action is within its jurisdiction, because the right to recover attorney's fees is but an incident of the case.

Third, a party who asks the court to act on a claim, such as by requesting that attorney's fees be fixed or reduced, is estopped from later assailing the court's jurisdiction to act on that claim.

Disposition

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and denied the writ prayed for, with costs against the petitioners.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that the right to recover attorney's fees is but an incident of the case in which the services were rendered, so the court may award it even below the jurisdictional threshold. Examiners like to use this case to test the rule against substituting certiorari for appeal and the doctrine of estoppel by asking the court for affirmative relief.