montemayor v. millora 654 scra 580

8/12/2019 Montemayor v. Millora 654 Scra 580

1/9

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 168251 July 27, 2011

JESUS M. MONTEMAYOR,Petitioner,vs.VICENTE D. MILLORA,Respondent.

D E C I S I O N

DEL CASTILLO, J.:

When the dispositive portion of a judgment is clear and unequivocal, it must be executed strictlyaccording to its tenor.

This Petition for Review on Certiorari1assails the Decision2dated May 19, 2005 of the Court ofAppeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 81075, which dismissed the petition for certiorari seeking to annuland set aside the Orders dated September 6, 20023and October 2, 20034of the Regional Trial Court(RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 98 in Civil Case No. Q-93-17255.

Factual An tecedents

On July 24, 1990, respondent Atty. Vicente D. Millora (Vicente) obtained a

loan of P400,000.00 from petitioner Dr. Jesus M. Montemayor (Jesus) as evidenced by a promissorynote5executed by Vicente. On August 10, 1990, the parties executed a loan contract6wherein it was

provided that the loan has a stipulated monthly interest of 2% and that Vicente had already paid theamount of P100,000.00 as well as the P8,000.00 representing the interest for the period July 24 to

August 23, 1990.

Subsequently and with Vicentes consent, the interest rate was increased to 3.5% orP10,500.00 amonth. From March 24, 1991 to July 23, 1991, or for a period of four months, Vicente was supposedto pay P42,000.00 as interest but was able to pay only P24,000.00. This was the last paymentVicente made. Jesus made several demands7for Vicente to settle his obligation but to no avail.

Thus, on August 17, 1993, Jesus filed before the RTC of Quezon City a Complaint8for Sum ofMoney against Vicente which was docketed as Civil Case No. Q-93-17255. On October 19, 1993,Vicente filed his Answer9interposing a counterclaim for attorneys fees of not less thanP500,000.00.

Vicente claimed that he handled several cases for Jesus but he was summarily dismissed fromhandling them when the instant complaint for sum of money was filed.

Ruling of the Regional Trial Court

In its Decision10dated October 27, 1999, the RTC ordered Vicente to pay Jesus his monetaryobligation amounting to P300,000.00 plus interest of 12% from the time of the filing of the complainton August 17, 1993 until fully paid. At the same time, the trial court found merit in Vicentescounterclaim and thus ordered Jesus to pay Vicente his attorneys fees which is equivalent to the
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#fnt1


2/9

amount of Vicentes monetary liability, and which shall be set-off with the amount Vicente isadjudged to pay Jesus, viz:

WHEREFORE, premises above-considered [sic], JUDGMENT is hereby rendered orderingdefendant Vicente D. Millora to pay plaintiff Jesus M. Montemayor the sum of P300,000.00 withinterest at the rate of 12% per annum counted from the filing of the instant complaint on August 17,

1993 until fully paid and whatever amount recoverable from defendant shall be set off by anequivalent amount awarded by the court on the counterclaim representing attorneys fees ofdefendant on the basis of "quantum meruit" for legal services previously rendered to plaintiff.

No pronouncement as to attorneys fees and costs of suit.

SO ORDERED.11

On December 8, 1999, Vicente filed a Motion for Reconsideration 12to which Jesus filed anOpposition.13On March 15, 2000, Vicente filed a Motion for the Issuance of a Writ of Executio n14withrespect to the portion of the RTC Decision which awarded him attorneys fees under hiscounterclaim. Jesus filed his Urgent Opposition to Defendants Motion for the Issuance of a Writ of

Execution15

dated May 31, 2000.

In an Order16dated June 23, 2000, the RTC denied Vicentes Motion for Reconsideration but grantedhis Motion for Issuance of a Writ of Execution of the portion of the decision concerning the award ofattorneys fees.

Intending to appeal the portion of the RTC Decision which declared him liable to Jesus for the sumof P300,000.00 with interest at the rate of 12% per annum counted from the filing of the complaint on

August 17, 1993 until fully paid, Vicente filed on July 6, 2000 a Notice of Appeal.17This was howeverdenied by the RTC in an Order18dated July 10, 2000 on the ground that the Decision has alreadybecome final and executory on July 1, 2000.19

Meanwhile, Jesus filed on July 12, 2000 a Motion for Reconsideration and Clarification20

of the June23, 2000 Order granting Vicentes Motion for the Issuance of a Writ of Execution. Thereafter, Jesusfiled on September 22, 2000 his Motion for the Issuance of a Writ of Execution.21After the hearing onthe said motions, the RTC issued an Order22dated September 6, 2002 denying both motions for lackof merit. The Motion for Reconsideration and Clarification was denied for violating Section 5,23Rule15 of the Rules of Court and likewise the Motion for the Issuance of a Writ of Execution, for violatingSection 6,24Rule 15 of the same Rules.

Jesus filed his Motion for Reconsideration25thereto on October 10, 2002 but this was eventuallydenied by the trial court through its Order26dated October 2, 2003.

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

Jesus went to the CA via a Petition for Certiorari27under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.

On May 19, 2005, the CA issued its Decision the dispositive portion of which provides:

WHEREFORE, the foregoing considered, the petition for certiorari is DENIED and the assailedOrders areAFFIRMED in toto. No costs.

SO ORDERED.28
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#fnt11


3/9

Not satisfied, Jesus is now before this Court via a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 ofthe Rules of Court.

Issue

notwithstanding the finality of the trial courts decision of October 27, 1999, as well as the orders of

September 6, 2002 and October 2, 2003, the legal issue to be resolved in this case is whether x x x[DESPITE] the absence of a specific amount in the decision representing respondents counterclaim,the same could be validly [offset] against the specific amount of award mentioned in the decision infavor of the petitioner.29

Petitioners Arguments

Jesus contends that the trial court grievously erred in ordering the implementation of the RTCsOctober 27, 1999 Decision considering that same does fix the amount of attorneys fees. Accordingto Jesus, such disposition leaves the matter of computation of the attorneys fees uncertain and,hence, the writ of execution cannot be implemented. In this regard, Jesus points out that not eventhe Sheriff who will implement said Decision can compute the judgment awards. Besides, a sheriff is

not clothed with the authority to render judicial functions such as the computation of specificamounts of judgment awards.

Respondents Arguments

Vicente counter-argues that the October 27, 1999 RTC Decision can no longer be made subject ofreview, either by way of an appeal or by way of a special civil action for certiorari because it hadalready attained finality when after its promulgation, Jesus did not even file a motion forreconsideration thereof or interpose an appeal thereto. In fact, it was Vicente who actually filed amotion for reconsideration and a notice of appeal, which was eventually denied and disapproved bythe trial court.

Our Ruling

The petition lacks merit.

The October 27, 1999 Decision of the RTC is already final and executory, hence, immutable.

At the outset, it should be stressed that the October 27, 1999 Decision of the RTC is already finaland executory. Hence, it can no longer be the subject of an appeal. Consequently, Jesus is boundby the decision and can no longer impugn the same. Indeed, well-settled is the rule that a decisionthat has attained finality can no longer be modified even if the modification is meant to correcterroneous conclusions of fact or law. The doctrine of finality of judgment is explained in Gallardo-Corro v. Gallardo:30

Nothing is more settled in law than that once a judgment attains finality it thereby becomesimmutable and unalterable. It may no longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification ismeant to correct what is perceived to be an erroneous conclusion of fact or law, and regardless ofwhether the modification is attempted to be made by the court rendering it or by the highest court ofthe land. Just as the losing party has the right to file an appeal within the prescribed period, thewinning party also has the correlative right to enjoy the finality of the resolution of his case. Thedoctrine of finality of judgment is grounded on fundamental considerations of public policy and soundpractice, and that, at the risk of occasional errors, the judgments or orders of courts must become
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#fnt29


4/9

final at some definite time fixed by law; otherwise, there would be no end to litigations, thus setting tonaught the main role of courts of justice which is to assist in the enforcement of the rule of law andthe maintenance of peace and order by settling justiciable controversies with finality.31

To stress, the October 27, 1999 Decision of the RTC has already attained finality. "Such definitivejudgment is no longer subject to change, revision, amendment or reversal. Upon finality of the

judgment, the Court loses its jurisdiction to amend, modify or alter the same. Except for correction ofclerical errors or the making of nunc pro tuncentries which cause no prejudice to any party, or wherethe judgment is void, the judgment can neither be amended nor altered after it has become final andexecutory. This is the principle of immutability of final judgment."32

The amount of attorneys fees is ascertainable from the RTC Decision. Thus, compensation ispossible.

Jesus contends that offsetting cannot be made because the October 27, 1999 judgment of the RTCfailed to specify the amount of attorneys fees. He m aintains that for offsetting to apply, the two debtsmust be liquidated or ascertainable. However, the trial court merely awarded to Vicente attorneysfees based on quantum meruit without specifying the exact amount thereof.

We do not agree.

For legal compensation to take place, the requirements set forth in Articles 1278 and 1279 of theCivil Code, quoted below, must be present.

ARTICLE 1278. Compensation shall take place when two persons, in their own right, are creditorsand debtors of each other.

ARTICLE 1279. In order that compensation may be proper, it is necessary:

(1) That each one of the obligors be bound principally, and that he be at the same time a

principal creditor of the other;

(2) That both debts consist in a sum of money, or if the things due are consumable, they beof the same kind, and also of the same quality if the latter has been stated;

(3) That the two debts be due;

(4) That they be liquidated and demandable;

(5) That over neither of them there be any retention or controversy, commenced by thirdpersons and communicated in due time to the debtor.

"A debt is liquidated when its existence and amount are determined. It is not necessary that it beadmitted by the debtor. Nor is it necessary that the credit appear in a final judgment in order that itcan be considered as liquidated; it is enough that its exact amount is known. And a debt isconsidered liquidated, not only when it is expressed already in definite figures which do not requireverification, but also when the determination of the exact amount depends only on a simplearithmetical operation x x x."33

In Lao v. Special Plans, Inc.,34we ruled that:
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#fnt31


5/9

When the defendant, who has an unliquidated claim, sets it up by way of counterclaim, and ajudgment is rendered liquidating such claim, it can be compensated against the plaintiffs claim fromthe moment it is liquidated by judgment. We have restated this in Solinap v. Hon. DelRosario35where we held that compensation takes place only if both obligations are liquidated.

In the instant case, both obligations are liquidated. Vicente has the obligation to pay his debt due to

Jesus in the amount of P300,000.00 with interest at the rate of 12% per annum counted from thefiling of the instant complaint on August 17, 1993 until fully paid. Jesus, on the other hand, has theobligation to pay attorneys fees which the RTC had already determined to be equivalent to whateveramount recoverable from Vicente. The said attorneys fees were awarded by the RTC on thecounterclaim of Vicente on the basis of "quantum meruit" for the legal services he previouslyrendered to Jesus.

In its Decision, the trial court elucidated on how Vicente had established his entitlement forattorneys fees based on his counterclaim in this manner:

Defendant, on his counterclaim, has established the existence of a lawyer-client relationshipbetween him and plaintiff and this was admitted by the latter. Defendant had represented plaintiff in

several court cases which include the Laguna property case, the various cases filed by Atty. RomuloReyes against plaintiff such as the falsification and libel cases and the disbarment case filed byplaintiff against Atty. Romulo Reyes before the Commission on Bar Integration. Aside from thesecases, plaintiff had made defendant his consultant on almost everything that involved legal opinions.

More particularly in the Calamba, Laguna land case alone, plaintiff had agreed to pay defendant acontingent fee of 25% of the value of the property for the latters lega l services as embodied in the

Amended Complaint signed and verified by plaintiff (Exh. 5). Aside from this contingent fee,defendant had likewise told plaintiff that his usual acceptance fee for a case like the Laguna landcase is P200,000.00 and his appearance fee at that time was x x xP2,000.00 per appearance butstill plaintiff paid nothing.

The lawyer-client relationship between the parties was severed because of the instant case. The

court is however fully aware of defendants stature in life a UP law graduate, Bar topnotcher in1957 bar examination, former Senior Provincial Board Member, Vice-Governor and Governor of theprovince of Pangasinan, later as Assemblyman of the Batasang Pambansa and is considered aprominent trial lawyer since 1958. For all his legal services rendered to plaintiff, defendant deservesto be compensated at least on a "quantum meruit" basis.36

The above discussion in the RTC Decision was then immediately followed by the dispositive portion,viz:

WHEREFORE, premises above-considered, JUDGMENT is hereby rendered ordering defendantVicente D. Millora to pay plaintiff Jesus M. Montemayor the sum of P300.000.00 with interest at therate of 12% per annum counted from the filing of the instant complaint on August 17, 1993 until fully

paid and whatever amount recoverable from defendant shall be set off by an equivalentamount awarded by the court on the counterclaim representing attorneys fees ofdefendanton the basis of "quantum meruit" for legal services previously rendered to plaintiff.

No pronouncement as to attorneys fees and costs of suit.

SO ORDERED.37(Emphasis supplied.)
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#fnt35


6/9

It is therefore clear that in the execution of the RTC Decision, there are two parts to be executed.The first part is the computation of the amount due to Jesus. This is achieved by doing a simplearithmetical operation at the time of execution. The principal amount of P300,000.00 is to bemultiplied by the interest rate of 12%. The product is then multiplied by the number of years that hadlapsed from the filing of the complaint on August 17, 1993 up to the date when the judgment is to beexecuted. The result thereof plus the principal of P300,000.00 is the total amount that Vicente must

pay Jesus.

The second part is the payment of attorneys fees to Vicente. This is achieved by following the clearwordings of the above fallo of the RTC Decision which provides that Vicente is entitled to attorneysfees which is equivalent to whatever amount recoverable from him by Jesus. Therefore, whateveramount due to Jesus as payment of Vicentes debt is equivalent to the amount awarded to the latteras his attorneys fees. Legal compensation or set-off then takes place between Jesus and Vicenteand both parties are on even terms such that there is actually nothing left to execute and satisfy infavor of either party.

In fact, the RTC, in addressing Jesus Motion for Reconsideration and Clarification dated July 12,2000 had already succinctly explained this matter in its Order dated September 6, 2002, viz:

Notwithstanding the tenor of the said portion of the judgment, still, there is nothing to execute andsatisfy in favor of either of the herein protagonists because the said decision also states clearly that"whatever amount recoverable from defendant shall be SET-OFF by an equivalent amountawarded by the Court on the counterclaim representing attorneys fees of defendant on thebasis of "quantum merui t" for legal services previously rendered to plaintiff" x x x.

Said dispositive portion of the decision is free from any ambiguity. It unequivocably ordered that anyamount due in favor of plaintiff and against defendant is set off by an equivalent amount awarded todefendant in the form of counterclaims representing attorneys fees for past legal services herendered to plaintiff.

It will be an exercise in futility and a waste of so precious time and unnecessary effort to enforce

satisfaction of the plaintiffs claims against defendant, and vice versa because there is in fact asetting off of each others claims and liabilities under the said judgment which has long becomefinal.38(Emphasis in the original.)

A reading of the dispositive portion of the RTC Decision would clearly show that no ambiguity of anykind exists. Furthermore, if indeed there is any ambiguity in the dispositive portion as claimed byJesus, the RTC had already clarified it through its Order dated September 6, 2002 by categoricallystating that the attorneys fees awarded in the counterclaim of Vicente is of an amount equivale nt towhatever amount recoverable from him by Jesus. This clarification is not an amendment,modification, correction or alteration to an already final decision as it is conceded that such cannotbe done anymore. What the RTC simply did was to state in categorical terms what it obviouslymeant in its decision. Suffice it to say that the dispositive portion of the decision is clear and

unequivocal such that a reading of it can lead to no other conclusion, that is, any amount due infavor of Jesus and against Vicente is set off by an equivalent amount in the form of Vicentesattorneys fees for past legal services he rendered for Jesus.

WHEREFORE, the instant Petition for Review on Certiorariis DENIED. The assailed Decision of theCourt of Appeals dated May 19, 2005 in CA-G.R. SP No. 81075 which dismissed the petitionfor certiorari seeking to annul and set aside the Orders dated September 6, 2002 and October 2,2003 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 98 in Civil Case No. Q-93-17255, ishereby AFFIRMED.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#fnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#fnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#fnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#fnt38


7/9

SO ORDERED.

MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLOAssociate Justice

WE CONCUR:

TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTROAssociate Justice

Acting Chairperson

ARTURO D. BRIONAssociate Justice

LUCAS P. BERSAMINAssociate Justice

MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR.Associate Justice

C E R T I F I C A T I O N

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, it is hereby certified that the conclusions inthe above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer ofthe opinion of the Courts Division.

RENATO C. CORONAChief Justice

Footnotes

1Rollo, pp. 17-26.

2CA rollo, pp. 91-97; penned by Associate Justice Josefina Guevara-Salonga and concurredin by Associate Justices Ruben T. Reyes and Fernanda Lampas Peralta.

3Records, pp. 417-420; penned by Judge Evelyn Corpus-Cabochan.

4Id. at 452.

5Id. at 4.

6Id. at 5.

7Id. at 6, 10-14.

8Id. at 1-3.

9Id. at 20-24.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#rnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#rnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#rnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#rnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#rnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#rnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#rnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#rnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#rnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#rnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#rnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#rnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#rnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#rnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#rnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#rnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#rnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#rnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#rnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#rnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#rnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#rnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#rnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#rnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#rnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#rnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#rnt1


8/9

10Id. at 308-314; penned by Judge Justo M. Sultan.

11Id. at 313.

12Id. at 315-345.

13Id. at 348-356.

14Id. at 358-359.

15Id. at 372-373.

16Id. at 375-376; penned by Judge Estrella T. Estrada.

17Id. at 377-378.

18Id. at 382.

19This Order was issued prior to the promulgation of Neypes v. Court of Appeals, 506 Phil.613 (2005), where the Court categorically set a fresh period of 15 days from a denial of amotion for reconsideration within which to appeal.

Before Neypes, the party seeking to appeal should file the notice of appeal within theremaining period from the denial of the motion for reconsideration. Here, Vicente filedhis Motion for Reconsideration on December 8, 1999, the 15th day from his receipton November 23, 1999 of the October 27, 1999 RTC Decision. Having consumed the15-day period to appeal, Vicente should have filed his Notice of Appeal on July 1,2000, or the day immediately after his receipt on June 30, 2000 of the June 23, 2000Order denying his Motion for Reconsideration. Instead, he filed his Notice of Appealon July 6, 2000.

20Id. at 383-388.

21Id. at 392-393.

22Id. at 417-420.

23Section 5. Notice of hearing.The notice of hearing shall be addressed to all partiesconcerned, and shall specify the time and date of the hearing which must not be later thanten (10) days after the filing of the motion.

24Section 6. Proof of service necessary. No written motion set for hearing shall be acted

upon by the court without proof of service thereof.

25Records, pp. 421-427.

26Id. at 452.

27CA rollo, pp. 2-13.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#rnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#rnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#rnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#rnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#rnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#rnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#rnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#rnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#rnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#rnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#rnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#rnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#rnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#rnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#rnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#rnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#rnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#rnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#rnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#rnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#rnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#rnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#rnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#rnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#rnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#rnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#rnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#rnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#rnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#rnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#rnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#rnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#rnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#rnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#rnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#rnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#rnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#rnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#rnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#rnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#rnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#rnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#rnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#rnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#rnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#rnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#rnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#rnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#rnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#rnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#rnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#rnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#rnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#rnt10


9/9

28Id. at 97.

29Rollo, pp. 19-20.

30403 Phil. 498 (2001).

31Id. at 511.

32Bongcac v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 156687-88, May 21, 2009, 588 SCRA 64, 71.

33Tolentino, Arturo M., Commentaries and Jurisprudence on the Civil Code of thePhilippines, Vol. IV, 2002 ed., p. 371.

34G.R. No. 164791, June 29, 2010, 622 SCRA 27, 36.

35208 Phil. 561, 565 (1983).

36Records, p. 313.

37Id.

38Id. at 420.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#rnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#rnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#rnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#rnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#rnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#rnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#rnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#rnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#rnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#rnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#rnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#rnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#rnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#rnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#rnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#rnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#rnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#rnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#rnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#rnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#rnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#rnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#rnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#rnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#rnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#rnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#rnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#rnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#rnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#rnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#rnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#rnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_168251_2011.html#rnt28

montemayor v. millora 654 scra 580

Documents