AUGUSTO M. AQUINO v. HON. ISMAEL P. CABASAR, et al.

,
G.R. No. 191470, 26 January 2015, THIRD DIVISION (Peralta, J.)
Petitioner's failure to pay the docket fees pertinent to his motion should not be considered
as having divested the court a quo's jurisdiction.
Atty. Angel T. Domingo (now deceased) contracted with Augusto M.
Aquino to represent him in an Agrarian proceeding concerning his property situated
in Guimba, Nueva Ecija. Aquino successfully prosecuted the Agrarian case from the
up to the Supreme Court. For the legal services he rendered, Aquino filed a Motion
for Approval of Charging Attorneys Lien and for the Order of Payment. The said
Motion was denied by Judge Cabasar ratiocinating that the court has no jurisdiction
over the motion for approval of charging attorneys lien, it having been filed after
the judgment became final and executory and that there was failure to pay the
corresponding docket fees.
ISSUE:
Should the Motion for Approval of Charging Attorneys Lien of Aquino be
denied by reason of lack of jurisdiction?
RULING:
No. In the case of Rosario, Jr. v. De Guzman, the Court clarified a similar
issue and discussed the two concepts of attorneys fees that is, ordinary and
extraordinary. In its ordinary sense, it is the reasonable compensation paid to a
lawyer by his client for legal services rendered. In its extraordinary concept, it is
awarded by the court to the successful litigant to be paid by the losing party as
indemnity for damages. The two concepts of attorneys fees are similar in other
respects. They both require, as a prerequisite to their grant, the intervention of or
the rendition of professional services by a lawyer. As a client may not be held liable
for counsel fees in favor of his lawyer who never rendered services, so too may a
party be not held liable for attorneys fees as damages in favor of the winning party
who enforced his rights without the assistance of counsel. Moreover, both fees are
subject to judicial control and modification. And the rules governing the
determination of their reasonable amount are applicable in one as in the other.
Similarly, in the instant case, the attorneys fees being claimed by Aquino is
the compensation for professional services rendered, and not an indemnity for
damages. Aquino is claiming payment from Domingo for the successful outcome of
the agrarian case which he represented. We see no valid reason why Judge Cabasar
cannot pass upon a proper petition to determine attorney's fees considering that it is
already familiar with the nature and the extent of Aquinos legal services. If we are
to follow the rule against multiplicity of suits, then with more reason that Aquinos
motion should not be dismissed as the same is in effect incidental to the main case.

UST Law Review, Vol. LIX, No. 1, May 2015

The Court is, likewise, unconvinced that the court a quo did not acquire
jurisdiction over the motion solely due to non-payment of docket fees. Aquinos
failure to pay the docket fees pertinent to his motion should not be considered as
having divested the court a quo's jurisdiction. The Court notes that, in this case,
there was no showing that Aquino intended to evade the payment of docket fees as
in fact he manifested willingness to pay the same should it be necessary.
Likewise, pursuant to the ruling in Sun Insurance Office, Ltd. (SIOL) v.
Asuncion, should there be unpaid docket fees, the same should be considered as a
lien on the judgment. Thus, even on the assumption that additional docket fees are
required as a consequence of petitioner's motion, its non-payment will not result in
the courts loss of jurisdiction over the case.

UST Law Review, Vol. LIX, No. 1, May 2015