Gatmaytan v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Augusto Gatmaytan was engaged as counsel by Preciosa B. Garcia to represent her and her daughter, Agustina Garcia, in matters concerning the estate of Preciosa's late husband, Amado G. Garcia. The retainer agreement stipulated a contingent fee of 30% of the entire estate. Gatmaytan's services included securing letters of administration for Preciosa, their declaration as sole heirs, and the preparation of a project of partition. The project of partition included a provision that taxes, fees, and expenses, including attorney's fees, would be borne by the estate and paid prior to the distribution of shares. Procedural History: Gatmaytan filed a motion for authorization to pay his attorney's fees, which the Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted in an Omnibus Resolution on August 29, 1986, fixing the fee at 30% of the inheritance, payable when funds became available. Subsequently, on April 30, 1990, the RTC approved the project of partition, including the provision for attorney's fees. An order for execution pending appeal was issued on January 21, 1993, authorizing the payment of 30% of the inheritance as attorney's fees, followed by a writ of execution on February 2, 1993. However, on June 10, 1994, the RTC issued a new order fixing Gatmaytan's attorney's fees at P10,000,000.00, deducting prior payments and advances. Gatmaytan's motion for reconsideration was denied, and his subsequent appeal from these orders was initially recalled but later given due course. Meanwhile, Gatmaytan filed a petition for mandamus with the Court of Appeals seeking the enforcement of the earlier orders and writ of execution. The Petition: The petition for review assails the Court of Appeals' Decision dismissing Gatmaytan's suit for mandamus. Gatmaytan sought to compel the respondents, including the Court of Appeals, Deputy Sheriff, RTC, and various Registers of Deeds, to execute, enforce, and implement the RTC orders dated April 30, 1990, and January 21, 1993, and the writ of execution dated February 2, 1993. The core of the petition is whether the Court of Appeals erred in denying the mandamus petition, arguing that the earlier orders and writ of execution, which provided for 30% of the estate as attorney's fees, were still enforceable. Gatmaytan contended that it was the ministerial duty of the respondents to enforce these orders, despite the subsequent P10 million award by the RTC, which he argues was subject to his pending appeal.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for mandamus. Whether the writ of execution dated February 2, 1993, ordering the payment of 30% attorney's fees, can still be enforced despite the subsequent order of June 10, 1994, fixing the attorney's fees at P10,000,000.00.
Ruling
The petition is DISMISSED. The Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petition for mandamus.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for mandamus: The Court held that mandamus lies to compel the performance of a ministerial duty, but it requires a clear legal right to the thing demanded. In this case, the petitioner sought to enforce a writ of execution dated February 2, 1993, which stemmed from an order fixing attorney's fees at 30% of the inheritance. However, the RTC, in its order dated June 10, 1994, took it upon itself to adjudge a new amount for attorney's fees, setting it at P10,000,000.00. This subsequent order, which was not directly assailed in the mandamus case but was the subject of a separate appeal, superseded the earlier writ of execution. Therefore, the petitioner no longer had a clear legal right to enforce the superseded writ. On the issue of whether the writ of execution dated February 2, 1993, can still be enforced: The Court reiterated the principle that an order of a probate court fixing the amount of fees is interlocutory and subject to modification until the estate proceeding is terminated. The RTC's order of June 10, 1994, which fixed the attorney's fees at P10,000,000.00, was considered extant and effective as it had not been reversed or modified. Consequently, the writ of execution dated February 2, 1993, which was based on the earlier order, could no longer be enforced. The Court of Appeals correctly appreciated that no clear legal right existed to warrant the issuance of a writ of mandamus in favor of the petitioner because the order it sought to enforce had been superseded by a later, valid court order.
Main Doctrine
A writ of mandamus will not lie to enforce a writ of execution that has been superseded by a subsequent court order fixing attorney's fees at a different amount, as there is no clear legal right to the performance of the superseded act.