JOSE RI WING, PETITIONER, VS. JOSE O. VERA, JUDGE OF FIRST INSTANCE OF MANILA, GERONIMO LASALA, AND MARCIANA LEE, RESPONDENTS.

This is a petition for a writ of certiorari praying, for
the reasons therein alleged, that the two orders hereinbelow to be referred to of the respondent judge be set
aside and declared of no effect.

It appears that on December 19, 1936, the respondent,
Marciana Lee, through her counsel, the respondent Geronimo G. Lasala, filed in the Court of First Instance of
Manila against the petitioner herein a complaint for alimony, alleging the fact of marriage and abandonment without reasonable cause. The amount demanded was P500
a month, exclusive of attorney’s fees and the costs of the
suit. As the petitioner was outside of the Philippines at
the time, service of summons was made by publication in
a newspaper of general circulation designated by the trial
court. The petitioner failed to appear and so, on March
3, 1937, the respondent judge, Hon. Jose O. Vera, issued
an order of default rand set the case for hearing. Evidence
for the respondent, Marciana Lee, was presented and received. Thereafter, the respondent judge rendered judgment requiring the petitioner herein to furnish the respondent a monthly allowance of P200, and to pay the costs.
The judgment having become final and executory, the respondent Marciana Lee, through her attorney and co-respondent herein, filed an ex-parte motion praying that
a writ of execution be issued and served unto the corporations in which, it was claimed, the petitioner herein was
a stockholder. Included in the motion was a bill of costs
covering attorney’s fees and other items. The issuance of
a writ of execution was ordered by the respondent judge.
Another motion for the execution of the judgment, with
bill of costs annexed, was subsequently filed by the respondent attorney and granted by the respondent judge on
December 28, 1937. (Exhibit I.) Certain of the petitioner’s properties were attached by the city sheriff, but
before they could be sold the petitioner herein and the respondent Marciana Lee moved for the final termination
of the case, asserting the satisfactory and amicable settlement thereof and mutual willingness and desire to live
together again.” Opposition to this motion was registered
by the respondent counsel who charged the agreement between the spouses to be both illegal and fraudulent and
one made without his knowledge and consent. The motion,
nevertheless, was granted. The order of execution was
set aside and the sheriff directed to refrain from taking
further steps in connection with said execution. Upon
motion by the respondent attorney, however, the respondent judge, on February 28, 1938, reconsidered its previous
order and fixed the fees to be paid to the respondent attorney at P1,000. (Exhibit N.) The order of February
28 reads in part as follows:

“* * * No hubo convenio entre la demandante y su
abogado, Sr. Lasala, respecto al importe de los honorarios.
Por tanto, el Juzgado es el que tiene que fijarlos. Estos
honorarios del Sr. Lasala los fija el Juzgado en P1,000.
Habiendo ya recibido, sin embargo, P250 de la misma
Marciana Lee, el puede cobrar del demandado el resto de
P750, mas P43.12. Estos P43.12 son el remanente de los
P80.10 que el tambien reclama puesto que el ha recibido
ya a cuenta de dichos P80.10, P46.98.

“Por tanto, se reconsidera la orden de este Juzgado de
fecha 19 de febrero de 1938 en el sentido de que el demandado, no obstante la transaccion a que ha llegado con la
demandante, debe pagar al abogado Sr. Geronimo Lasala
la cantidad de P750 en concepto de honorarios, mas P43.12
en concepto de reembolso; y el Sheriff debera proseguir
con la ejecucion de los bienes del demandado para hacer
efectivas estas cantidades.”

Reconsideration of the foregoing order was sought by
the petitioner herein but was denied by the respondent
judge. The instant petition for a writ of certiorari is
directed against the orders of December 28, 1937 and
February 28, 1938.

In Mercado vs. Ostrand and Ruiz ([1917], 37 Phil., 179),
the question presented was “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.” This court answered the question in the affirmative and said:

“* * * That the husband, under the condition 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. * * *” (at p. 178.)

That the spouses can settle their case amicably is not to
be denied. Reasons of public policy justify the adjustment and termination of marital disputes and the restoration of harmony in the conjugal dwelling. But this right
cannot be made use of to deprive an attorney of the fees
to which he is entitled. The inclusion of attorney’s fees
in a bill of costs may have been irregular, but the irregularity is not such as to defeat the attorney’s claim. The respondent judge was within his powers when, notwithstanding the amicable settlement of the dispute between the
spouses, he allowed reasonable fees to the respondent attorney.

The writ prayed for is hereby denied, with costs against
the petitioner. So ordered.

Avanceña, C. J., Villa-Real, Abad Santos, Imperial, Diaz, and Concepcion, JJ., concur.