RAUL H. SESBREÑO, PETITIONER, VS. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS AND BENJAMIN RALLON, RESPONDENTS.

Sesbreño versus Court of Appeals

The Case

This is a petition for review on certiorari brought by Attorney Raul H. Sesbreño against the Court of Appeals and private respondent Attorney Benjamin Rallon. The petitioner had served as counsel for certain heirs in a long-running intestate proceeding for the settlement of the estate of Vito Borromeo, and he sought to collect attorney's fees not only from his own clients but also from the other heirs who had hired their own lawyers. The case matters because it settles two enduring principles: that the Supreme Court's judgment in a case is the law of that case and must simply be executed by the lower court, and that a void order never acquires finality even if it has been partially executed.

Procedural History

In the intestate proceeding before the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City, the petitioner filed a motion to fix his attorney's fees, demanding payment from heirs who were not his clients. The trial court granted the motion and assessed the other heirs one half of one percent of whatever was due to them from the distribution of the residue of the estate. Private respondent, together with another counsel, moved for reconsideration. The trial court then modified its order, revoked the award of attorney's fees against the other heirs, and noted that the award was not in consonance with law and jurisprudence because those heirs had not contracted the petitioner's services and were represented by their own counsel.

The petitioner elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the trial court's order. The appellate court relied on the Supreme Court's earlier consolidated decision in the Borromeo-Herrera case, which held that the lawyers in this estate proceeding should collect from the heirs-distributees who individually hired them, and it declared the earlier order null and void. Aggrieved, the petitioner instituted this petition for review before the Supreme Court.

Facts

The petitioner acted as counsel for Crispin and Carlos Borromeo, both deceased, who were among the many heirs of the late Vito Borromeo. Private respondent Benjamin Rallon, meanwhile, was counsel for the Estate of Salud Borromeo and for the heirs of Marcial, Canuto and Asuncion, all surnamed Borromeo.

On 17 February 1989, the petitioner filed a motion to fix his attorney's fees, alleging that his legal services benefited not only his clients but also the private respondent and the other lawyers. He therefore demanded attorney's fees from the other heirs who were not his clients. On 29 August 1989, the trial court granted the motion and assessed the other heirs one half of one percent of whatever was due to them from the distribution of the residue of the estate.

On 30 January 1990, the trial court modified its earlier order and revoked the award against the other heirs, noting that it was not in consonance with law and jurisprudence since those heirs had not contracted the petitioner's services and were represented by their own counsel. The petitioner then went to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed on 7 May 1991, citing the earlier Borromeo-Herrera ruling that the lawyers should collect from the heirs-distributees who individually hired them. Hence this petition, in which the petitioner insists that the Borromeo-Herrera ruling does not apply to him because he was not a party to that claim, that the earlier order had already attained finality and been partially satisfied, and that one heir, Amelinda Talam, had entered into an attorney-client relationship with him.

Issues

• Whether or not the ruling in the Borromeo-Herrera case on attorney's fees applies to the petitioner even though he was not a party to that claim.
• Whether or not the trial court's order of 29 August 1989 had attained finality and could no longer be altered or modified because it had been partially satisfied.
• Whether or not the heir Amelinda Talam was a client of the petitioner and should be ordered to pay him attorney's fees.

Applicable Provisions

The decision does not quote a statutory provision; it construes and applies the Supreme Court's own prior judgment in the Borromeo-Herrera case, which it treats as the law of that case. The Court reproduced the following holding:

We agree with the petitioners' contention that attorney's fees are not the obligation of the estate but of the individual heirs who individually hired their respective lawyers. The portion, therefore, of the Order of August 15, 1969, segregating the exorbitantly excessive amount of 40% of the market value of the estate from which attorney's fees shall be taken and paid should be deleted.

This holding bears on the case because it fixes who may be charged attorney's fees in the estate proceeding, namely only the heirs who individually hired a given lawyer.

The Court also reproduced the dispositive portion of that judgment:

The lawyers should collect from the heirs-distributees who individually hired them, attorney's fees according to the nature of the services rendered but in amounts which should not exceed 20% of the market value of the property the latter acquired from the estate as beneficiaries.

This bears on the case because it is the mandate that the trial court was bound to execute and that the challenged order sought to modify.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the Borromeo-Herrera ruling applies to all the lawyers appearing in the estate proceeding, not to any lawyer in particular. The decision is not ambiguous; it clearly mandates that all lawyers should only collect from the heirs-distributees who individually hired them. The petitioner can therefore charge attorney's fees only from the heirs who individually hired him, and not from those who hired other lawyers such as the private respondent.

On the second issue, the Court held that the order of 29 August 1989 never attained finality because it was void from its inception, having been issued in excess of jurisdiction. The Supreme Court is the final arbiter of all legal questions properly brought before it, and its decision in any given case constitutes the law of that particular case. The only function of a trial court once it receives the judgment of a higher court is to order its execution; it cannot interpret or reverse that judgment. A void judgment is non-existent and cannot acquire finality, and it is in legal effect no judgment or order at all. Since the order was void from its incipience, it never attained finality although it was partially executed, and the trial court correctly declared it void insofar as it assessed attorney's fees against heirs who were not the petitioner's clients.

On the third issue, the Court held that the allegation that Amelinda Talam was a client deserved scant consideration. The alleged contract was nothing but a mere ex parte manifestation on her part that she was agreeable to giving the petitioner 5,000 pesos out of the 20,000 pesos set aside for attorney's fees. Such acquiescence was not an admission that she had in fact hired the petitioner; its purpose was to facilitate the release of the 100,000 pesos due her, since the petitioner had opposed any release of the shares due the heirs without first satisfying his alleged attorney's fees.

Doctrine

A decision of the Supreme Court in any given case constitutes the law of that particular case. Once a trial court receives the judgment of a higher court, its only function is to order execution; it cannot interpret or reverse that judgment. An order issued in excess of jurisdiction is void, and a void judgment is non-existent and can never acquire finality, even if it has been partially executed. In the settlement of an estate, attorney's fees are not the obligation of the estate but of the individual heirs who individually hired their respective lawyers, and a lawyer may collect only from the heirs-distributees who individually hired him.

Disposition

The petition was denied for utter lack of merit, and the decision of the Court of Appeals was upheld.

Remember This

Memorize the line that a void judgment is non-existent and therefore cannot acquire finality, even if partially executed. Examiners use this case to test the law of the case and the duty of a trial court to execute, not reinterpret, a higher court's judgment, and to test who bears attorney's fees in estate proceedings.