015 JOHN C.

QUIRANTE and DANTE CRUZ, petitioners,

vs.
THE HONORABLE INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, MANUEL C.
CASASOLA, and ESTRELLITA C. CASASOLA, respondents.
[G.R. No. 73886
January 31, 1989]
TOPIC:
PONENTE: REGALADO, J.

AUTHOR:
NOTES: (if applicable)

FACTS: (chronological order)

Dr. Indalecio Casasola had a contract with a building contractor named NormanGuerrero
Philippine American General Insurance Co. Inc. (Philamgen) acted as bondsman for Guerrero. In view of Guerrero's failure to perform his
part of the contract within the period specified, Dr. Casasola, thru his counsel, Atty. John Quirante, sued both Guerrero and Philamgen
Philamgen filed a cross-claim against Guerrero for indemnification
RTC: in favor of Dr. Indalecio Casasola by rescinding the contract ordering Guerrero and Philamgen to pay actual damages of P129,430,
moral damages of P50,000, exemplary damages of P40,000 and attorney's fees of P30,000 ordering Guerrero alone to pay liquidated
damages of P300/day from December 15, 1978 to July 16, 1979 and ordering Philamgen to pay Dr. Casasola the amount of the surety
bond equivalent to P120,000.
Petition to quash the writ of execution and to compel the trial court to give due course to the appeal was dismissed
In the mean time, Dr. Casasola died leaving his widow and several children as survivors
Quirante filed a motion in the trial court for the confirmation of his attorney's fees
According to him, there was an oral agreement between him and the late Dr. Casasola that in case of recovery of the surety
bond - P30K and in case of damages excess of the surety bond, divided equally bet. the heirs, Atty. Quirante and Atty. Cruz.
RTC: granted the motion for confirmation
ISSUE(S): W/N Atty. Quirante can claim attorney's fees
HELD: NO. present recourse is hereby AFFIRMED

RATIO:
attorney's fees may be asserted either in:
the very action in which the services in question have been rendered -as in this case
the Court may pass upon said claim, even if its amount were less than the minimum prescribed by law for the jurisdiction of said court, upon the
theory that the right to recover attorney's fees is but an incident of the case in which the services of counsel have been rendered
rests on the assumption that the court trying the case is to a certain degree already familiar with the nature and extent of the lawyer's services
The rule against multiplicity of suits will in effect be served
a separate action
2 Kinds of Attorney's fees
1. item of damages provided for under Article 2208 of the Civil Code wherein the award is made in favor of the litigant, not of his counsel, and the
litigant, not his counsel, is the judgment creditor who may enforce the judgment for attorney's fees by execution
2. claims are based on the contract for professional services, with the attorney as the creditors and the clients as the debtors
It is further observed that the supposed contract alleged by petitioners as the basis for their fees provides that the recovery of the amounts claimed
is subject to certain contingencies
We are of the considered view that the orderly administration of justice dictates that such issue be likewise determined by the court a quo
inasmuch as it also necessarily involves the same contingencies in determining the propriety and assessing the extent of recovery of attorney's fees
by both petitioners herein. The court below will be in a better position, after the entire case shall have been adjudicated
We, therefore, take exception to and reject that portion of the decision of the respondent court which holds that the alleged confirmation to
attorney's fees should not adversely affect the non-signatories thereto, since it is also premised on the eventual grant of damages to the Casasola
family, hence the same objection of prematurity obtains and such a holding may be pre-emptive of factual and evidentiary matters that may be
presented for consideration by the trial court.
CASE LAW/ DOCTRINE:
DISSENTING/CONCURRING OPINION(S):