MIGUEL ALBANO, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, VS. FERMIN RAMOS, ET AL., DEFENDANTS, PERPETUA D. COLOMA, PETITIONER-APPELLEE.

Petitioner-appellee, Atty. Perpetua D.
Coloma, was counsel for plaintiffs-appellants in their litigation with
defendants Fermin Ramos, et al., Civil Case No. 4147
of the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Norte.  By agreement her professional fees were on a
contingent basis:  1/3 of whatever lands
and damages might be awarded to her clients in the case; nothing if the case
was lost.  The judgment gave plaintiffs
one-fourth (1/4) of the lands in litigation and damages subsequently assessed
at P17,009.60.

Upon petitioner’s motion
the lower court, in an order dated November 17, 1951, declared her fees to be a
lien on the judgment for damages but not on the judgment for recovery of the
lands, and ruled that to claim her one-third share in the latter she should
file a “proper” action. 
Plaintiffs appealed from that order, but it was subsequently affirmed by
the Court of Appeals, and the judgment of affirmance
has since become final.

Petitioner thereafter
took steps to obtain execution against plaintiffs’ properties for the
satisfaction of her fees.  After protracted
proceedings the Court issued the following order on October 4, 1957:

“IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, this Court hereby reconsiders
its order, subject-matter of the motion for reconsideration at bar in so far as
is inconsistent herewith and the plaintiffs are hereby ordered to pay Atty. Perpetua D. Coloma her lien of five thousand six hundred sixty nine pesos and
eighty centavos (P5,669.80) on the damages, or in lieu thereof, to pay her the
excess of P3,285.00 which they
have already collected, leaving Atty. Coloma
to collect from the defendants the balance of P2,384.80, and to segregate
one-third (1/3) portion due on her share in all the lands won by her for the
plaintiffs, and in case the segregation cannot be done amicably between the
parties, the petitioner and the respondents,
who are the original plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 4147, are hereby enjoined to
propose the names of those who shall be appointed commissioners on partition
for the purpose of effecting the segregation sought for in the petition within
thirty (30) days counted from their receipt of their copies thereof.”

The foregoing order, with
particular reference to that part concerning the recoverable amount in cash, is
based on the court’s finding that plaintiffs had already collected on the
judgment the sum of P13,624.80 (out of an entire amount of P17,008.60), which
was “P3,285.00” in excess of the 2/3 share corresponding to
them.  Actually this computation is
erroneous, because two-thirds of P17,008.60 is approximately P11,339.60, and therefore beyond
this amount plaintiffs collected only an excess of P2,285.00.

In this appeal plaintiffs
assign three errors:  (1) in the
computation made by the trial court, as already indicated; (2) in the failure
of said court to rule on their motion to quash the execution levy on their
properties and to suspend or cancel the auction sale thereof; and (3) in
ordering a partition of the lands adjudicated to plaintiffs in the main case
for the purpose of segregating the one-third (1/3) portion thereof pertaining
to petitioner as her professional fees.

We first rule on the
third assignment of error, which is undoubtedly well-taken.  The question of how petitioner may recover
her share in the lands awarded to plaintiffs is a closed one, and was settled by the Court of
Appeals in its decision of August 30, 1965, affirming the order of the court a
quo of November 17, 1951,
to the effect that the recovery of such share should be the subject of a
separate action.

Under the first
assignment of error, plaintiffs contend that there is no sufficient evidence as
to how much they have actually collected on the judgment for damages against
defendants.  The matter, however,
involves a question of fact, and hence the lower court’s finding thereon is no
longer subject to review in the present appeal. 
But as pointed out by plaintiffs, the order appealed from
“suffers from vagueness and indefiniteness as to render it incapable of
execution.” For indeed, against whom may such execution
issue?  Against plaintiffs, for
the entire share of petitioner amounting to P5,669.80
in the damages assessed against defendants; or against plaintiffs for P2,285.00
(the excess collected by plaintiffs over their 2/3 share) and against
defendants for the balance of P2,384.80, to complete petitioner’s share of
1/3?  And who has the right to choose
which alternative to follow for execution purposes?  Furthermore, we believe that neither
alternative is equitable, nor does it conform with the
agreement concerning petitioner’s fees. 
The first is unfair to plaintiffs, for it makes them in effect liable to
petitioner for the latter’s whole share, irrespective of the amount they may
have actually collected from defendants. 
By the same token, the second alternative is unfair to petitioner,
because it gives her less than her 1/3 share in the sum already collected by
plaintiffs, and leaves it to her to recover the balance directly from defendants,
who may or may not be able to pay the same.

In justice to both parties here, plaintiffs should pay petitioner
one-third of P13,624.80, which they have already
collected from defendants, or the sum of P4,541.60, plus one-third of whatever
other amount may have been collected thereafter by plaintiffs.  In case of plaintiffs’ failure to pay,
execution may issue against their properties, including their 2/3 share in the
lands adjudicated to them in the main case against defendants.  Whatever balance there may be in favor of
petitioner should be collected from defendants under the judgment for damages
against them, by execution or otherwise, since petitioner’s claim is a lien on
said judgment; provided that any amount thus collected shall be divided between
plaintiffs and petitioner in the proportion of two-thirds and one-third,
respectively.

WHEREFORE,
the order appealed from is reversed and set aside insofar as it directs the
partition of the lands recorded by plaintiffs from defendants, without
prejudice to petitioner’s right to file a separate action for that purpose, and
modified as above indicated insofar as petitioner’s share in the judgment for
damages is concerned.  No pronouncement
as to costs.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Regala, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar, Sanchez,
and Castro, JJ.,
concur.