Riwlng v. Vera
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Marciana Lee filed a complaint for alimony against Jose Riwing, alleging marriage and abandonment. She sought P500 monthly support, attorney's fees, and costs. Summons was served by publication as petitioner was abroad. Procedural History: Petitioner failed to appear, leading to a default order and subsequent judgment by the respondent judge, ordering petitioner to pay P200 monthly allowance and costs. A writ of execution was issued. Later, the spouses moved for the termination of the case due to an amicable settlement and reconciliation. The respondent counsel opposed this, claiming the agreement was illegal and fraudulent. The motion was initially granted, setting aside the execution order. However, upon motion by the respondent counsel, the respondent judge reconsidered and fixed the attorney's fees at P1,000, ordering the sheriff to proceed with execution for P750 plus P43.12 in reimbursement. The Petition: Petitioner sought a writ of certiorari to set aside the orders of December 28, 1937, and February 28, 1938, which fixed and ordered the execution of attorney's fees despite the amicable settlement.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent judge committed a grave abuse of discretion in fixing attorney's fees despite the amicable settlement between the spouses. Whether the respondent judge had the jurisdiction to award attorney's fees in an alimony case.
Ruling
The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied. The orders of the respondent judge are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of fixing attorney's fees despite amicable settlement: The Court held that while spouses have the right to settle their case amicably, this right cannot be used to deprive an attorney of earned fees. The inclusion of attorney's fees in a bill of costs, even if irregular, does not defeat the attorney's claim. The respondent judge acted within his powers by allowing reasonable fees to the respondent attorney, notwithstanding the amicable settlement between the spouses. Public policy favors the restoration of harmony in the conjugal dwelling, but this should not prejudice the rights of third parties like attorneys who have rendered services. On the issue of jurisdiction to award attorney's fees: Citing Mercado vs. Ostrand and Ruiz, the Court affirmed that a judge has jurisdiction in an action for support and maintenance to render a judgment requiring the husband to pay expenses necessarily incurred by the wife for the enforcement of her legal rights, including judicial costs and a reasonable amount for attorney's fees. The obligation to support includes the obligation to pay expenses necessary for the wife to enforce her legal rights. Therefore, the respondent judge was within his powers when he allowed reasonable attorney's fees.
Main Doctrine
A court may fix reasonable attorney's fees for services rendered in a case for alimony, even if the spouses reach an amicable settlement, to prevent the settlement from depriving the attorney of earned fees.