Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 130 views

    Gan Tion vs. Court of Appeals, 28 SCRA 235 No. L-22490, May 21, 1969

    Uploaded by

    Jocelyn Yemyem Mantilla Veloso
    Gan Tion filed an ejectment case against his tenant, Ong Wan Sieng, for unpaid rent. The court ruled in favor of Ong and ordered Gan Tion to pay P500 in attorney's fees. Gan Tion then increased the rent and claimed unpaid back rent of P4,320. When Ong tried to collect the attorney's fees, Gan Tion argued this should be subject to legal compensation against the unpaid back rent. The Court of Appeals disagreed, finding the requirements for legal compensation were not met. However, the Supreme Court reversed, finding that awards for attorney's fees are made in favor of the litigant, not the attorney, and so the unpaid back rent and attorney's

    Copyright:

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

    Gan Tion vs. Court of Appeals, 28 SCRA 235 No. L-22490, May 21, 1969

    Uploaded by

    Jocelyn Yemyem Mantilla Veloso
    130 views1 page
    Gan Tion filed an ejectment case against his tenant, Ong Wan Sieng, for unpaid rent. The court ruled in favor of Ong and ordered Gan Tion to pay P500 in attorney's fees. Gan Tion then increased the rent and claimed unpaid back rent of P4,320. When Ong tried to collect the attorney's fees, Gan Tion argued this should be subject to legal compensation against the unpaid back rent. The Court of Appeals disagreed, finding the requirements for legal compensation were not met. However, the Supreme Court reversed, finding that awards for attorney's fees are made in favor of the litigant, not the attorney, and so the unpaid back rent and attorney's

    Original Description:

    Gan Tion vs. Court of Appeals, 28 SCRA 235 No. L-22490, May 21, 1969

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Gan Tion filed an ejectment case against his tenant, Ong Wan Sieng, for unpaid rent. The court ruled in favor of Ong and ordered Gan Tion to pay P500 in attorney's fees. Gan Tion then increased the rent and claimed unpaid back rent of P4,320. When Ong tried to collect the attorney's fees, Gan Tion argued this should be subject to legal compensation against the unpaid back rent. The Court of Appeals disagreed, finding the requirements for legal compensation were not met. However, the Supreme Court reversed, finding that awards for attorney's fees are made in favor of the litigant, not the attorney, and so the unpaid back rent and attorney's

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    130 views1 page

    Gan Tion vs. Court of Appeals, 28 SCRA 235 No. L-22490, May 21, 1969

    Uploaded by

    Jocelyn Yemyem Mantilla Veloso
    Gan Tion filed an ejectment case against his tenant, Ong Wan Sieng, for unpaid rent. The court ruled in favor of Ong and ordered Gan Tion to pay P500 in attorney's fees. Gan Tion then increased the rent and claimed unpaid back rent of P4,320. When Ong tried to collect the attorney's fees, Gan Tion argued this should be subject to legal compensation against the unpaid back rent. The Court of Appeals disagreed, finding the requirements for legal compensation were not met. However, the Supreme Court reversed, finding that awards for attorney's fees are made in favor of the litigant, not the attorney, and so the unpaid back rent and attorney's

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Gan Tion vs. Court of Appeals, 28 SCRA 235 No.

    L-22490, May 21, 1969

    GAN TION, petitioner,


    vs.
    HON. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. JUDGE AGUSTIN P. MONTESA, as Judge of the Court of
    First Instance of Manila, ONG WAN SIENG and THE SHERIFF OF MANILA, respondents

    Facts:
    Ong Wan Sieng was a tenant in certain premises owned by Gan Tion. In 1961 the latter filed an
    ejectment case against the former, alleging non-payment of rents for August and September of that year,
    at P180 a month, or P360 altogether. The defendant denied the allegation and said that the agreed monthly
    rental was only P160, which he had offered to but was refused by the plaintiff. The plaintiff obtained a
    favorable judgment in the municipal court (of Manila), but upon appeal the Court of First Instance, on
    July 2, 1962, reversed the judgment and dismissed the complaint, and ordered the plaintiff to pay the
    defendant the sum of P500 as attorney's fees. That judgment became final.

    On October 10, 1963 Gan Tion served notice on Ong Wan Sieng that he was increasing the rent to
    P180 a month, effective November 1st, and at the same time demanded the rents in arrears at the old rate
    in the aggregate amount of P4,320.00, corresponding to a period from August 1961 to October 1963.

    In the meantime, over Gan Tion's opposition, Ong Wan Sieng was able to obtain a writ of
    execution of the judgment for attorney's fees in his favor. Gan Tion went on certiorari to the Court of
    Appeals, where he pleaded legal compensation, claiming that Ong Wan Sieng was indebted to him in the
    sum of P4,320 for unpaid rents. The appellate court accepted the petition but eventually decided for the
    respondent, holding that although "respondent Ong is indebted to the petitioner for unpaid rentals in an
    amount of more than P4,000.00," the sum of P500 could not be the subject of legal compensation, it being
    a "trust fund for the benefit of the lawyer, which would have to be turned over by the client to his
    counsel."

    In the opinion of said court, the requisites of legal compensation, namely, that the parties must be
    creditors and debtors of each other in their own right (Art. 1278, Civil Code) and that each one of them
    must be bound principally and at the same time be a principal creditor of the other (Art. 1279), are not
    present in the instant case, since the real creditor with respect to the sum of P500 was the defendant's
    counsel.

    Issue:

    Whether or not there has been legal compensation between petitioner Gan Tion and respondent
    Ong Wan Sieng.

    Held: No.

    This is not an accurate statement of the nature of an award for attorney's fee's. The award is made
    in favor of the litigant, not of his counsel, and is justified by way of indemnity for damages recoverable
    by the former in the cases enumerated in Article 2208 of the Civil Code.1 It is the litigant, not his counsel,
    who is the judgment creditor and who may enforce the judgment by execution. Such credit, therefore,
    may properly be the subject of legal compensation. Quite obviously it would be unjust to compel
    petitioner to pay his debt for P500 when admittedly his creditor is indebted to him for more than P4,000.

    The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the writ of execution issued by the Court of First
    Instance of Manila in its Civil Case No. 49535 is set aside.

    Veloso, Jocelyn M.

    You might also like