CANON 22

CASE NO. 1
METROPOLITAN BANK & TRUST CO. V. CA / G.R. Nos. 86100-03 / January 23,
1990

FACTS
Atty. Alafriz handled several cases from 1974 to 1983 concerning the declaration of
nullity of certain deeds of sale. Pending resolution in the RTC, Atty. Alafriz filed a motion to
enter his charging lien equal to 25% of the market value of the litigated properties as attorney’s
fees. The court granted and the attorney’s lien was annotated on the TCTs. The cases were later
dismissed with prejudice at the instance of the plaintiffs therein. Thus the Bank now had the
TCT’s in its name and the attorney’s lien was carried over. Atty. Alafriz filed a motion to fix his
attorney’s fees based on quantum meruit. RTC granted the motion and fixed the fees at 936K.
CA affirmed.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Alafriz is entitled to a charging lien

RULING
Yes. CA reversed without prejudice to proper to the bringing of proper proceedings. A
charging lien, to be enforceable as security for the payment of attorney's fees, requires as a
condition sine qua non a judgment for money and execution in pursuance of such judgment
secured in the main action by the attorney in favor of his client. A lawyer may enforce his right
to fees by filing the necessary petition as an incident in the main action in which his services
were rendered when something is due his client in the action from which the fee is to be paid.
Here, there was no money judgment. Thus there is no charging lien. And court has no authority
to fix a charging lien. A petition for recovery of attorney's fees, either as a separate civil suit or
as an incident in the main action, has to be prosecuted and the allegations therein established as
any other money claim. A petition for recovery of attorney's fees, either as a separate civil suit or
as an incident in the main action, has to be prosecuted and the allegations therein established as
any other money claim. The persons who are entitled to or who must pay attorney's fees have the
right to be heard upon the question of their propriety or amount. Hence, the obviousnecessity of a
hearing is beyond cavil. in fixing a reasonable compensation for the services rendered by a
lawyer on the basis of quantum meruit, the elements to be considered are generally (1) the
importance of the subject matter in controversy, (2) the extent of the services rendered, and (3)
the professional standing of the lawyer. These are aside from the several other considerations
laid down by this Court in a number of decisions as pointed out by respondent court. A
determination of all these factors would indispensably require nothing less than a full-blown trial
where private respondent can adduce evidence to establish its right to lawful attorney's fees and
forpetitioner to oppose or refute the same.
CASE NO. 2
DORONILA-TIOSECO V. CA / G.R. No. 120634 / December 3, 1999

FACTS
Heirs of Doronilla had a dispute with their counsel over his Atty Lien. The RTC declared
that Counsel was entitled to 10% of the shares of the heirs.Counsel filed a motion to annotate
attorney's lien on the title of parcels of land of the estate which the heirs had inherited. The RTC
granted the motion.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the order of annotation is proper

RULING
No. An attorney's lien does not extend to land which is the subject matter of the litigation.
CASE NO. 3
SESBREÑO V. CA / G.R. No. 161690 / April 16, 2006

FACTS:
Atty. Sesbreño was hired as counsel by some workers. They agreed that Atty Sesbreño,
would take 30% of whatever they may recover. The trial court ordered reinstatement and
payment of backwages. The employer appealed the decision.Pending appeal, the workers entered
into a compromise agreement that they waived their right to be reinstated with the agreement of
payment of full backwages at once. The court adopted the compromise and ordered the
withholding of the payment of 55% for the lien of the Atty. But instead of withholding, the
employer directly paid the workers in full. Thus Atty Sesbreño filed a complaint for collection
against the employer and employees. Atty. Sesbreño moved to dismiss the case against the
employees. Later the trial court ordered payment of 669K by the employee. The CA reversed.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the employer is liable for the attorney’s fees

RULING
No. Atty Sesbreño rightly commenced the action against both his clients and the
judgment debtors. However, at the instance of the petitioner himself, the complaint against his
clients was withdrawn on the ground that he had settled his differences with them.  He
maintained the case against employers because, according to him, the computation of the
employees money claims should have been based on the national and not the provincial wage
rate.  Thus, petitioner insists that the respondents should be made liable for the difference. Atty
Sesbreño’s act in withdrawing the case against the employees and agreeing to settle their dispute
may be considered a waiver of his right to the lien. Even if there was such a breach of the
contract, he had waived his right to claim against the respondents by accepting payment and/or
absolving from liability those who were primarily liable to him
CASE NO. 4
EDMUNDO NAVAREZ V. ATTY. MANUEL ABROGAR III / G.R. No. 191641 /
September 2, 2015

FACTS
Navarez engaged the services of Atty. Abrogar III as collaborating counsel of Atty.
Perfecto Laguio in the case that involved the settlement of the estate of Avelina Quesada-
Navarez that was then pending before the RTC of Quezon City. Navarez filed a Manifestation
with the RTC that he was terminating the services of Atty. Abrogar. The latter manifested that
the Firm was withdrawing as counsel effective upon the appointment of an Administrator of the
estate from the remaining proceedings for the settlement of the estate of Avelina Quesada-
Navarez. Navarez wrote to Atty. Abrogar offering to pay his attorney’s fees in accordance with
their Retainer Agreement minus the latter’s cash advances – an offer that Atty. Abrogar had
previously refused. Atty. Abrogar filed a Motion to Enter into the Records his attorney’s lien
pursuant to Rule 138, Section 37 of the Rules of Court. The RTC directed the petitioner to pay
Atty. Abrogar’s attorney’s fees. The CA dismissed the petition and held that the RTC did not
commit grave abuse of discretion.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the RTC acted beyond its jurisdiction and committed grave abuse of
discretion when it ordered the payment of attorney’s fees.

RULING:
Yes. In the present case, the RTC ordered the registration of Atty. Abrogar’s lien without
a hearing even though the client contested the amount of the lien. The petitioner had the right to
be heard and to present evidence on the true amount of the charging lien. The RTC acted with
grave abuse of discretion because it denied the petitioner his right to be heard, i.e., the right to
due process. A motion for the enforcement of the lien is in the nature of an action commenced by
a lawyer against his clients for attorney’s fees. As in every action for a sum of money, the
attorney-movant must first pay the prescribed docket fees before the trial court can acquire
jurisdiction to order the payment of attorney’s fees. Under this situation, the RTC had not yet
acquired jurisdiction to enforce the charging lien because the docket fees had not been paid. The
payment of docket fees is mandatory in all actions, whether separate or an offshoot of a pending
proceeding. The RTC again abused its discretion in this respect because it prematurely enforced
the lien and issued a writ of execution even before the main case became final; no money
judgment was as yet due to the client to which the lien could have attached itself. Execution was
improper because the enforceability of the lien is contingent on a final and executory award of
money to the client. This Court notes that in CA-G.R. SP No. 108734, the CA nullified the
"award" to which the RTC attached the attorney’s lien as there was nothing due to the petitioner.
Thus, enforcement of the lien was premature
CASE NO. 5
HELEN CHANG V. ATTY. JOSE R. HIDALGO / A.C. 6934 / April 6, 2016

FACTS
Chang alleged that she engaged the services of Atty. Hidalgo as legal counsel to represent
her in several collection cases pending in various courts. pursuant to the contract they executed,
Chang issued five (5) checks in favor of Atty. Hidalgo totaling ₱52,000.00. Atty. Hidalgo also
collected ₱9,500.00 as "hearing fee."”Chang claimed that despite receiving a total of ₱61,500.00,
Atty. Hidalgo did not attend any of the hearings in the collection cases and, instead, sent another
lawyer without her consent. The other lawyer failed to attend all hearings, which resulted in the
dismissal of the cases. Chang prayed that Atty. Hidalgo be administratively disciplined by this
Court. Atty. Hidalgo admitted receiving money from Chang as agreed attorney’s fees.He
reiterated that he attended the hearings set for the cases. However, he claimed that he filed a
Notice of Withdrawal as Counsel due to Chang’s stubbornness and uncooperative behavior in the
handling of the cases.Since he transferred residence, he was not able to verify if the court granted
his Notice of Withdrawal. Nonetheless, Atty. Hidalgo alleged that he was entitled to the
acceptance fees for exerting time and effort in the preparation of the cases and in the collation of
evidence. He maintained that the return of the fees, as ordered by the Board of Governors of the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines, was not possible because his only means of income was the
Social Security System pension he has been receiving, and even that was not enough for his
health maintenance.

ISSUE
Whether or not Atty. Hidalgo shall be held liable for violating the Code of Professional
Responsibility

RULING

Yes. Respondent failed to present proof that he performed any act in relation to
complainant’s collection cases or attended the hearings for the collection cases. Instead,
respondent merely claimed. Also, Atty. Hidalgo devoted substantial time and energy in
researching and preparing the case for trial, and he even attended hearings to that effect. He
exerted his best efforts in collating their evidences and their defense. However, Helen Chang
would not listen to respondent. Complainant has other matters and line of defense on her mind
because she keeps on insisting they do things her way. Respondent felt that he could no longer
work for the complainant as. Left without any recourse, respondent advised the complaint [sic] to
seek the services of another lawyer as he could no longer perform adequately and this was done
in good faith. And the actuations of the complainant apparently precipitated the respondent to
file the withdrawal as counsel. The respondent is entitled to the acceptance fees he collected
from the complainant, or at least a portion of it. Respondent admittedly withdrew from the cases
but he failed to provide any evidence to show that complainant, his client, agreed to the
withdrawal or, at the very least, knew about it. The offensive attitude of a client is not an excuse
to just disappear and withdraw from a case without notice to the court and to the client,
especially when attorney’s fees have already been paid. Atty.Hidalgo was suspended from the
practice of law for a period of one (1) year