Gmur v. Revilla

G.R. No. 34782 · 1931-02-13 · J. STREET, J.: · Primary: Remedial; Secondary: Commercial
REITERATION

Facts

1. The Antecedents: This case concerns six separate insurance policies taken out by Lim Cuan Sy & Co. on a stock of merchandise. Following a fire that destroyed the goods, the insurance companies refused to pay, alleging fraud by the insured. Lim Cuan Sy & Co. initiated six lawsuits to recover the insurance proceeds. Due to identical issues, the parties stipulated that only one case would be fully litigated, with the others to abide by its outcome. 2. Procedural History: The test case proceeded to the Supreme Court, which affirmed the lower court's judgment in favor of the plaintiff on November 13, 1930. Subsequently, the insurers paid the total amount due under all policies into court. At this juncture, the petitioners, Otto Gmur, Inc., and F. E. Zuellig, Inc., who had acquired interests in the insurance policies through assignment, sought to intervene in the lower court to be heard on the matter of attorney's fees. The respondent judge denied their motions for intervention, prompting the filing of these petitions for a writ of mandamus. 3. The Petition: The petitioners, Otto Gmur, Inc., and F. E. Zuellig, Inc., are seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the respondent judge to allow their intervention in the pending cases. They argue that as assignees and thus real parties in interest, they have a right to be heard regarding the attorney's fees to be awarded to Jose P. Laurel, the attorney for the successful plaintiff. They contend that intervention is necessary to protect their rights and ensure that the fees are reasonable, especially since they will ultimately bear a portion of this cost.

Issue(s)

Whether mandamus lies to compel a judge to allow intervention by assignees after a test case has been decided but during the supplemental proceeding to fix attorney's fees. Whether assignees of the subject matter of litigation are real parties in interest entitled to participate in the determination of attorney's fees.

Ruling

The Supreme Court granted the writs of mandamus, directing the respondent judge to permit the petitioners to intervene in the proceedings for the determination of attorney's fees.

Ratio Decidendi

On Issue 1: The Court held that mandamus is a proper remedy to correct an abuse of judicial discretion in denying intervention where such intervention is necessary for the reasonable protection of the intervenor's rights. Relying on Joaquin v. Herrera, the Court explained that while intervention is generally discretionary, the discretion is not absolute when the intervenor shows an interest that cannot be protected otherwise. The argument that the period of trial had already expired was rejected because the issue of attorney's fees only arises once the main litigation is decided and the recovery is at the disposition of the court. Therefore, for the purpose of fixing fees, the petitioners were timely in their application to be heard before the fund was distributed. The person who must ultimately pay the fee has an inherent right to contest its amount. On Issue 2: The Court ruled that upon the assignment of the insurance policies, the petitioners became the real parties in interest under statutory rules of procedure. In Philippine jurisdiction, litigation must be conducted in the name of the real party in interest, and a successor in interest has a right to be substituted or to intervene in the record. The petitioners were not strangers to the litigation but were the true successors to the original plaintiff's rights. As the ones who would receive the proceeds minus the fees, their interest was direct and substantial. To deny them the right to be heard on the amount of the attorney's lien would deprive them of their day in court regarding their property rights.

Main Doctrine

An assignee of the subject of litigation, who becomes the real party in interest, has a right to intervene in proceedings to determine attorney's fees, even after the main case is decided, as such intervention is necessary for the reasonable protection of their rights and to ensure they have their day in court.

Access audio review, related cases, codal links, and more.

Open LexMatePH →