Você está na página 1de 2



ROSARIO DE JESUS-ALANO, petitioner, November 28, 1959 / G.R. No. L-9473 vs. HON. BIENVENIDO A. TAN, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila, and TRINIDAD DE LEON VDA. DE ROXAS, respondents. KEY TAKE-AWAY: Supervising inspector automatically dismissed and claiming compensation for the overtime hours he rendered ~ Labor law, must be construed liberally in favor of the employee PONENTE: Gutierrez David, J. PETITIONERS: RESPONDENTS: ATTY ROSARIO DE JESUS-ALANO HON. BIENVENIDO A. TAN, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila, and TRINIDAD DE LEON VDA. DE ROXAS FACTS Petition for certiorari to have the order of court annulled as issued without jurisdiction, besides being manifestly arbitrary, unjust and unconstitutional. Services of Atty. Rosario de Jesus-Alano were availed by Mrs. Trinidad de Leon Vda. De Roxas upon the recommendation of Judge Abaya seeking extrajudicial foreclosure, pursuant of Act No. 3135. Acting on the application, sheriff sold the mortgaged property at auction and out of the net proceeds of the sale delivered to Mrs. Roxas the sum of P153,020.00 representing the principal of the mortgage loan and its compounded interest. Mrs. Roxas also claimed that she was entitled to 10% attorneys fee and and be given preference over other claims. Mrs. Roxas substantiated her claim for attorneys fees and cited Art. 2208 of the new Civil Code, which was signed by Att. De Jesus-Alano. Court ordered to deliver the amount of P2,500.00 to Mrs. Roxas representing her attorneys fees and other expenses incurred in the foreclosure proceeding which was delivered to Atty. De Jesus-Alano. 55 days after the court order, Mrs. Roxas filed a petition ordering Atty. De Jesus-Alano to deliver the sum of P2,500.00 to her alleging that the attorneys fee belongs to her and not to de Jesus-Alano, who had no right to claim for such services because she had already satisfied this obligation to de Jesus-Alano with the P350 paid to her. Petition: [Mandamus/Certiorari/Motion for Reconsideration/etc] Petition for certiorari to have the order of court annulled as issued without jurisdiction, besides being manifestly arbitrary, unjust and unconstitutional. ISSUES: Whether or not petitioner is entitled to attorneys fee of P2,500.00 aside from the P350.00 previously delivered to the petitioner HELD/RATIO: Yes Mrs. Roxas never claimed that she engaged the legal services of another attorney other than the petitioner for the foreclosure of the real estate mortgage made in her favor. The record also shows that petitioner appeared as counsel for Mrs. Roxas in Civil Case No. 22881, which appearance, in the absence of any showing to the contrary, is presumed to be authorized. (Sec. 20, Rule 127, Rules of Court.) P2,500.00 in question was by the writ of execution ordered delivered to petitioner being the lawyer of defendant Mrs. Roxas. Petitioner has, therefore, acquired, and may validly exercise, a general or retaining lien over the amount of P2,500.00. An attorney shall have a lien upon the funds, documents and papers of his client which have lawfully come into his possession, and may retain the same until his lawful fees and disbursements have been paid, and may apply such funds to the satisfaction thereof." Final Ruling: [Petition is affirmed/denied/bla bla] Petition for certiorari is granted and preliminary injunction issued made permanent without costs. Amount of P350.00 shall be returned by petitioner to the respondent Mrs. Roxas.

#10 Galofa v Nee Bon plaintiff-appellee: APOLONIO GALOFA defendant-appellant: NEE BON SING Ponente: Reyes, J.B.L., J Action: Direct appeal from a judgment on the pleadings of the Court of First Instance of Sorsogon Facts:

Plaintiff-appellee Apolonio Galofa filed a complaint against the defendant-appellant Nee Bon Sing for the recovery of possession of and to quiet title over a certain parcel of land. Plaintiff alleged that he wasn't been able to actually possess the parcel of land due to "an unwarranted adverse claim of rights of ownership and possession by the defendant" Plaintiff asserts that the defendant is an alien who's barred to own real property and if he is allowed to, sale by Fe Nicolas would be invalid since she does not have right to legally dispose the property since she is not the owner. Defendant-appellant Nee Bon Sing denies all the allegations by the plaintiff and expressed that he never asserted title of ownership to anybody, no deed of conveyance was executed in favor of the defendant by one Fe Nicolas, nor claimed any right to the said property either by himself or through another. Upon motion by the plaintiff that the defendant's answer, denying any claim or right to the land, failed to tender an issue, lower court declared that the plaintiff, owner of the property "free from any cloud arising from any assertion of adverse claim or interest whatsoever on the part of the defendant", ordering the defendant to deliver possession of the property to the plaintiff, and to pay attorney's fees and costs. Defendant filed a motion for reconsideration to appeal the judgement of the pleadings.

Issue: Whether or not the defendant's answer to the complaint tendered a genuine issue. Held: Court committed no reversible error in ordering the appealed judgment, thus appealed decision is AFFIRMED Ratio: The plaintiff's allegation of inability to take actual possession of the parcel of land due to "an unwarranted adverse claim of rights of ownership and possession by the defendant and allegations of how such claim was exercised" plus the defendant's denial to the complaint or allegations of the plaintiff with his disclaimer of possessory rights, the defendant's denial is, therefore, a negative pregnant, which is equivalent to an admission. With the defendant's simultaneous assertion that he has no right to the land, and admission that he has "no real right or interest whatsoever not having been involved in any way with any transaction affecting the title or possession of the same" served it right fot the trial court to order the defendant to deliver the possession of the property to the plaintiff and deny defendant's motion for reconsideration.

Note: The decision/case did not mention any canon or any issue relating to lawyers However, the c ase Galofa v Nee Bon Sings always mentioned in cases involving denial which is considered as negative pregnant. As per Legal Ethics book, the case falls under Canon 19 (Thanks Lois for checking this out!) CANON 19 - A LAWYER SHALL REPRESENT HIS CLIENT WITH ZEAL WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF THE LAW. Rule 19.01 - A lawyer shall employ only fair and honest means to attain the lawful objectives of his client and shall not present, participate in presenting or threaten to present unfounded criminal charges to obtain an improper advantage in any case or proceeding. Rule 19.02 - A lawyer who has received information that his client has, in the course of the representation, perpetrated a fraud upon a person or tribunal, shall promptly call upon the client to rectify the same, and failing which he shall terminate the relationship with such client in accordance with the Rules of Court. Rule 19.03 - A lawyer shall not allow his client to dictate the procedure on handling the case.