G.R. No. 31884 & G.R. No. 31866 , February 27, 1930
MANILA BUILDING AND LOAN ASSOCIATION, plaintiff-appellee, vs. B. A. GREEN, defendant-appellant, S. W. O’BRIEN, ET AL., defendants-appellees.

FACTS

The Manila Building and Loan Association (MBLA) filed two separate foreclosure suits against B. A. Green to recover on a single promissory note secured by a real estate mortgage covering properties located in two different jurisdictions: one in Manila and another in Rizal. S. W. O’Brien, et al., holders of a second mortgage on the same properties, were impleaded as defendants. Green did not contest the validity or amounts of the debts but appealed the awards for attorney’s fees. The trial courts granted MBLA attorney’s fees totaling P7,500 (P5,000 in the Rizal case and P2,500 in the Manila case) based on a 10% stipulation in the mortgage contract. They also awarded O’Brien, et al., a total of P5,000 in attorney’s fees (P2,500 in each case) based on a stipulation in the second mortgage for P2,500. Green argued that only one attorney’s fee should be awarded per mortgagee despite the two suits.

ISSUE

1. Whether the mortgagees (MBLA and O’Brien, et al.) are entitled to separate awards of attorney’s fees for the foreclosure suits filed in two different courts involving the same mortgage obligation but covering properties in different jurisdictions.
2. What constitutes a reasonable award for attorney’s fees under the circumstances.

RULING

1. No. While the filing of two suits was necessary due to the properties being situated in different judicial territories, the mortgagees are not entitled to double attorney’s fees. The court treated the two appeals as consolidated. It held that MBLA is entitled to only one attorney’s fee for the foreclosure of its single mortgage, despite the dual proceedings. Similarly, O’Brien, et al., are entitled only to the single attorney’s fee stipulated in their mortgage contract.

2. The Supreme Court modified the awards. For MBLA, the total attorney’s fees from both lower courts (P7,500) was deemed excessive. Considering the necessity of work in two courts, the Court set a reasonable consolidated fee of P7,000, with legal interest from the date of filing the second complaint. For O’Brien, et al., the Court enforced the precise contractual stipulation of P2,500 as the total fee for both cases, with legal interest from the date of filing their answer in the first case. The Court clarified that satisfaction of either judgment in full would operate as satisfaction of both, preventing double recovery.

The judgments of the lower courts were affirmed on the merits but modified regarding attorney’s fees as stated. No costs were awarded on appeal.