Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 125 views

    Metrobank Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    Yahiko Yamato
    This case discusses whether an attorney is entitled to a charging lien for legal services provided from 1974 to 1983 related to several cases concerning the nullification of deeds of sale. While the attorney had registered a lien for 25% of the properties' value, the cases were later dismissed. The attorney then filed to fix fees based on quantum meruit, which the trial court granted. However, the Supreme Court reversed, finding that a charging lien requires a money judgment, which did not exist in this case. A separate civil suit or petition within the main case is needed to recover attorney's fees.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Metrobank Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    Yahiko Yamato
    125 views2 pages
    This case discusses whether an attorney is entitled to a charging lien for legal services provided from 1974 to 1983 related to several cases concerning the nullification of deeds of sale. While the attorney had registered a lien for 25% of the properties' value, the cases were later dismissed. The attorney then filed to fix fees based on quantum meruit, which the trial court granted. However, the Supreme Court reversed, finding that a charging lien requires a money judgment, which did not exist in this case. A separate civil suit or petition within the main case is needed to recover attorney's fees.

    Original Description:

    digest case

    Original Title

    Metrobank vs CA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case discusses whether an attorney is entitled to a charging lien for legal services provided from 1974 to 1983 related to several cases concerning the nullification of deeds of sale. While the attorney had registered a lien for 25% of the properties' value, the cases were later dismissed. The attorney then filed to fix fees based on quantum meruit, which the trial court granted. However, the Supreme Court reversed, finding that a charging lien requires a money judgment, which did not exist in this case. A separate civil suit or petition within the main case is needed to recover attorney's fees.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    125 views2 pages

    Metrobank Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    Yahiko Yamato
    This case discusses whether an attorney is entitled to a charging lien for legal services provided from 1974 to 1983 related to several cases concerning the nullification of deeds of sale. While the attorney had registered a lien for 25% of the properties' value, the cases were later dismissed. The attorney then filed to fix fees based on quantum meruit, which the trial court granted. However, the Supreme Court reversed, finding that a charging lien requires a money judgment, which did not exist in this case. A separate civil suit or petition within the main case is needed to recover attorney's fees.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    1. Metrobank vs CA – GR No.

    86100-03, January 23, 1990

    Facts:

    Atty. handled several cases from 1974 to 1983 concerning the declaration of nullity

    of certain deeds of sale. Pending resolution in the RTC, Atty filed a motion to enter his

    charging lien equal to 25% of the market value of the litigated properties as atty fees.

    The court granted and the atty’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 atty’s lien was carried over.

    Atty. filed a motion to fix his Atty Fees based on quantum meruit. RTC granted the

    motion and fixed the fees at 936K. CA affirmed.

    Issue:

    Is Atty. entitled to a charging lien? Is a separate suit necessary for enforcement of the

    lien?

    Held:

    Yes! 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.

    You might also like