Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 73886 January 31, 1989
JOHN C. QUIRANTE and DANTE CRUZ, petitioners,
vs.
THE HONORABLE INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, MANUEL C. CASASOLA, and
ESTRELLITA C. CASASOLA, respondents.
Quirante & Associates Law Office for petitioners.
R.S. Bernaldo & Associates for private respondents.

REGALADO, J.:
This appeal by certiorari seeks to set aside the judgment' 1 of the former Intermediate Appellate
Court promulgated on November 6, 1985 in AC-G.R. No. SP-03640, 2 which found the petition
for certiorari therein meritorious, thus:
Firstly, there is still pending in the Supreme Court a petition which may or may
not ultimately result in the granting to the Isasola (sic) family of the total amount of
damages given by the respondent Judge. Hence the award of damages confirmed in
the two assailed Orders may be premature. Secondly, assuming that the grant of
damages to the family is eventually ratified, the alleged confirmation of attorney's
fees will not and should not adversely affect the non-signatories thereto.
WHEREFORE, in view of the grave abuse of discretion (amounting to lack of jurisdiction)
committed by the respondent Judge, We hereby SET ASIDE his questioned orders of
March 20, 1984 and May 25, 1984. The restraining order previously issued is made
permanent. 3

The challenged decision of respondent court succinctly sets out the factual origin of this case as
follows:
... Dr. Indalecio Casasola (father of respondents) had a contract with a building contractor
named Norman GUERRERO. The Philippine American General Insurance Co. Inc.
(PHILAMGEN, for short) acted as bondsman for GUERRERO. In view of GUERRERO'S
failure to perform his part of the contract within the period specified, Dr. Indalecio
Casasola, thru his counsel, Atty. John Quirante, sued both GUERRERO and
PHILAMGEN before the Court of first Instance of Manila, now the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) of Manila for damages, with PHILAMGEN filing a cross-claim against GUERRERO
for indemnification. The RTC rendered a decision dated October 16, 1981. ... 4

In said decision, the trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiff by rescinding the contract; ordering
GUERRERO and PHILAMGEN to pay the plaintiff actual damages in the amount of P129,430.00,
moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00, exemplary damages in the amount of P40,000.00 and

attorney's fees in the amount of P30,000.00; ordering Guerrero alone to pay liquidated damages of
P300.00 a day from December 15, 1978 to July 16, 1979; and ordering PHILAMGEN to pay the
plaintiff the amount of the surety bond equivalent to P120,000.00. 5 A motion for reconsideration filed
by PHILAMGEN was denied by the trial court on November 4, 1982. 6
Not satisfied with the decision of the trial court, PHILAMGEN filed a notice of appeal but the same
was not given due course because it was allegedly filed out of time. The trial court thereafter issued
a writ of execution. 7
A petition was filed in AC-G.R. No. 00202 with the Intermediate Appellate Court for the quashal of
the writ of execution and to compel the trial court to give due course to the appeal. The petition was
dismissed on May 4, 1983 8 so the case was elevated to this Court in G.R. No. 64334. 9 In the
meantime, on November 16, 1981, Dr. Casasola died leaving his widow and several children as
survivors. 10
On June 18, 1983, herein petitioner 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 with regard to his attorney's fees, which agreement was allegedly confirmed in writing by
the widow, Asuncion Vda. de Casasola, and the two daughters of the deceased, namely Mely C.
Garcia and Virginia C. Nazareno. Petitioner avers that pursuant to said agreement, the attorney's
fees would be computed as follows:
A. In case of recovery of the P120,000.00 surety bond, the attorney's fees of the undersigned
counsel (Atty. Quirante) shall be P30,000.00.
B. In case the Honorable Court awards damages in excess of the P120,000.00 bond, it shall be
divided equally between the Heirs of I. Casasola, Atty. John C. Quirante and Atty. Dante Cruz.
The trial court granted the motion for confirmation in an order dated March 20, 1984, despite an
opposition thereto. It also denied the motion for reconsideration of the order of confirmation in its
second order dated May 25, 1984. 11
These are the two orders which are assailed in this case.
Well settled is the rule that counsel's claim for attorney's fees may be asserted either in the
very action in which the services in question have been rendered, or in a separate action. If
the first alternative is chosen, 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 ." 12 It also 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 subserved. 13
What is being claimed here as attorney's fees by petitioners is, however, different from
attorney's fees as an 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. 14 Here, the petitioner's claims are based on an alleged contract for professional
services, with them as the creditors and the private respondents as the debtors.

In filing the motion for confirmation of attorney's fees, petitioners chose to assert their claims in the
same action. This is also a proper remedy under our jurisprudence. Nevertheless, we agree with the
respondent court that the confirmation of attorney's fees is premature. As it correctly pointed out, the
petition for review on certiorari filed by PHILAMGEN in this Court (G.R. No. 64834) "may or may not
ultimately result in the granting to the Isasola (sic) family of the total amount of damages" awarded
by the trial court. This especially true in the light of subsequent developments in G.R. No. 64334. In
a decision promulgated on May 21, 1987, the Court rendered judgment setting aside the decision of
May 4, 1983 of the Intermediate Appellate Court in AC-G.R. No. 00202 and ordering the respondent
Regional Trial Court of Manila to certify the appeal of PHILAMGEN from said trial court's decision in
Civil Case No. 122920 to the Court of Appeal. Said decision of the Court became final and executory
on June 25, 1987.
Since the main case from which the petitioner's claims for their fees may arise has not yet
become final, the determination of the propriety of said fees and the amount thereof should
be held in abeyance. This procedure gains added validity in the light of the rule that the
remedy for recovering attorney's fees as an incident of the main action may be availed of
only when something is due to the client. Thus, it was ruled that:
... an attorney's fee cannot be determined until after the main litigation has been
decided and the subject of recovery is at the disposition of the court. The issue
over attorney's fee only arises when something has been recovered from which the
fee is to be paid. 15

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. It is subject to
the condition that the fee shall be P30,000.00 in case of recovery of the P120,000.00 surety bond,
plus an additional amount in case the award is in excess of said P120,000.00 bond, on the sharing
basis hereinbefore stated.
With regard to the effect of the alleged confirmation of the attorney's fees by some of the heirs of the
deceased. 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, inclusive of any liability of PHILAMGEN and the respective participations of the
heirs of Dr. Casasola in the award, to determine with evidentiary support such matters like the basis
for the entitlement in the fees of petitioner Dante Cruz and as to whether the agreement allegedly
entered into with the late Dr. Casasola would be binding on all his heirs, as contended by petitioner
Quirante.
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.
WHEREFORE, with the foregoing observation, the decision of the respondent court subject of the
present recourse is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.