Montemayor v. Millora

 Atty. Vicente owes Jesus money and Jesus owes Atty. Vicente attorney’s fees. The court then decided to off-set each other’s debt Montemayor v. Millora 27 July 2011  Del Castillo, J. Petition: for Review on Certiorari  assails  assails the Decision dated May 19, 2005 of the Court of Appeals (CA which dis!issed the petition for certiorari  see"in#  see"in# to annul and set aside the $rders dated %epte!&er ', 2002 and $cto&er 2, 200 of the Re#ional )rial Court (R)C of *ue+on City, ranch 9-. Parties:  Yobido iner bus - !etitioner "ourt of A!!eals with eny# Ardee and Jasmin Tumboy - res!ondents $acts/ $acts/ Respondent Atty. icente D. Millora (icente o&tained a loan of 00, 000.00 fro! petitioner Dr. 3esus M. Monte!ayor (3esus. )he loan has a 24 interest and &y this ti!e, icente had already paid the a!ount of 10-, 000.00 for the period 3uly 2 to Au#ust 2, 1990. %u&seuently and with icente6s consent, consent, the interest rate was increased to .54 or 10, 500.00 a !onth. 7ro! March 2, 1991 to 3uly 2, 1991, or for a period of four !onths, icente was supposed to pay 2, 000.00 as interest &ut was a&le to pay only 2, 000.00. 3esus !ade several de!ands for icente to settle his o&li#ation &ut to no avail. 3esus filed &efore the R)C of of *ue+on City. Atty. icente filed filed a "%&'T()"A*M a#ainst 3esus clai!in# that Atty.  icente was 3esus6 lawyer on several several occasions and that in fact, 3esus owes Atty. Atty. icente attorney6s attorney6s fees of not less than than 500, 000.00. icente clai!s that he was su!!arily dis!issed fro! handlin# the! when the instant co!plaint for su! of !oney was filed. %n %ctober +,#  )T" ordered Vicente to !ay Jesus his monetary obli/ation amountin/ to P011# 111.11 !lus interest of +2 from the time of the filin/ of the com!laint on Au/ust ,# 0 until fully !aid A33*T*%'AY# T4()( 5A6 '% P)%'%&'"M('T %' ATT%)'(Y’6 $((6 A'3 "%6T %$ 6&*T. Jesus filed a motion for reconsideration at the "A but was denied. 8pon appeal to the hi#her court, 3esus contends that the trial court #rievously erred in orderin# the i!ple!entation of the R)C6s $cto&er 2, 1999 Decision considerin# considerin# that sa!e does fi: the a!ount of attorney6s fees. Accordin# to 3esus, such disposition leaves the !atter of co!putation of the attorney6s fees uncertain and, hence, the writ of e:ecution cannot &e i!ple!ented. ;n this re#ard, 3esus points out that not even even the %heriff who will i!ple!ent said Decision can co!pute the