AGUSTIN MERCADO, PETITIONER, VS. JAMES A. OSTRAND, JUDGE OF FIRST INSTANCE OF MANILA, AND VALENTINA RUIZ, RESPONDENTS.

This is an original action commenced in the Supreme Court to obtain the writ
of certiorari against the Court of First Instance of the city of Manila.

The only question presented by the petition and answer is whether a judge of
the Court of First Instance has jurisdiction, in an action by the wife against
her husband for support and maintenance, to render a judgment requiring the
husband, in addition to a judgment for a reasonable sum for the support and
maintenance of the wife, an amount sufficient to cover costs and attorney’s
fees.

The fact that the petitioner, Agustin Mercado, and the respondent, Valentina
Ruiz, are husband and wife is not denied. That an action had been commenced by
the said wife against the said husband for maintenance and support is admitted.
That during the pendency of that action, on the 8th day of September, 1917, the
Honorable James A. Ostrand, judge, rendered a judgment against the said husband
requiring him to pay to the wife the sum of P100 for the purpose of covering
judicial costs and attorney’s fees is the fact of which complaint is made in the
present petition. That the husband, under the conditions mentioned in the
complaint, is under the legal obligation of supporting his wife is not denied.
That being true, it would seem to be perfectly reasonable and just and within
the sound discretion of the court if the husband makes it necessary for the wife
to resort to the courts for the purpose of enforcing said legal obligation, that
then and in that case he should be required to pay the expenses necessarily
incurred by her for the purpose of enforcing her legal rights. Judicial costs
and a reasonable amount for attorney’s fees are necessary results of litigation.
Admitting the premises that the husband, under the facts stated in the
complaint, is under a legal obligation to support his wife, he is also under the
legal obligation to pay such expenses as may become necessary for the wife to
enforce her legal rights. No question is raised with reference to the
reasonableness or unreasonableness of the amount allowed by the lower court for
costs and attorney’s fees. We have heretofore decided an analogous question in
the case of Lanzuela Santos vs. Sweeney (4 Phil. Rep., 79).

There is nothing in the record which shows that the lower court in any way
exceeded its jurisdiction or abused the sound discretion imposed upon him. The
remedy prayed for is, therefore, hereby denied, with costs. So ordered.

Arellano, C, Torres, Carson, Araullo, Street, and Malcolm,
JJ., concur.