Aro v.

Nañawa

FACTS

Atty. Regino Aro was engaged by Luis and Pablo Magtibay for the prosecution of their
claim, as heirs, in the estate of their deceased uncle Lucio Magtibay, consisting of
properties which were in the possession of Aurelia Martinez, spouses Gregorio and
Maria Mendoza and spouses Maximo and Rosario Porto. The agreement was to entrust
the prosecution of the claim on a contingent basis. Aro filed of a petition to litigate as
pauper and a complaint in the CFI of Laguna. The defendants in interposed a motion to
dismiss. Plaintiffs and Aro were invited to Sta. Maria, Laguna for an extrajudicial
settlement. Plaintiffs were given notice of this invitation in their given address in
Calauag, to come to Aro's office in Candelaria to go to Sta. Maria, Laguna. Aro waited
for plaintiffs, but due to their failure to come, the latter sent a telegram to Ex-Mayor
Cordove, a spokesperson to defendants, notifying him their not being able to go.

On October 28, 1964, Aro received a copy of the order dated October 24,1964. To his
surprise, he also received a second motion to dismiss, together with an extrajudicial
settlement, dated October 23, 1964 at Sta. Cruz, Laguna and signed by plaintiffs and
Aurelia Martinez. It was allegedly had been made to appear that plaintiffs were
adjudicated 1/4 share in the properties of the spouses and 3/4 share of Aurelia
Martinez, but making it appear also that said plaintiffs waived their share in favor of
Aurelia Martinez. Because of this, Aro alleges that he was deprived of his contingent
fees. Aro filed by registered mail, on November 4, 1964, his opposition to the second
motion to dismiss; and filed an action to set aside deed of extrajudicial partition and
waiver, and to record attorney's lien.

On November 21, 1964, because of the inquiries made by Judge Arsenio Nañawa to Aro
as to whether there is a Philippine precedent which directs the protection by the court
of the rights of any of its officers against any collusion perpetrated by the parties in a
case to defraud an attorney of his compensation agreed upon. Unfortunately, Aro could
only find American jurisprudence for his support. Judge Nañawa had opined that the
claim for and the fixing of the attorney's fees should be done in a separate action. In
favor of private respondents here, Nañawa dismissed the case and refused to give Aro
any kind of immediate protection on his rights. Aro claims that by the terms of their
engagement, plaintiffs had expressly ceded to him 1/2 [later verbally reduced to 1/3] of
whatever share they would get from the estate, and defendants had full knowledge
thereof. Later, Aro tries to make out a case of certiorari for grave abuse of discretion on
the part of Judge Nañawa in dismissing the case with respect to his alleged attorney's
fees, as well as a case of mandamus to order the latter to resolve his opposition and
counter-motion to fix the compensation he should be paid. He cites American
authorities in that courts had always intervened to protect attorneys against collusive
agreements or fraudulent settlements entered into by the parties in a case to cheat
attorneys out of their costs or of their fees.
ISSUE

Should Aro’s interests over his attorney’s fees be paid when his clients colluded with
the adverse party to evade payments? YES, Aro may have his interests protected by the
courts and his attorney’s fees should be satisfied.