FACTS:

The dispute in this case revolves around attorney's fees between the petitioner, law firm Rilloraza, Africa, De Ocampo & Africa (RADA), and their former client, Eastern Telecommunications Philippines, Inc. (ETPI). Initially, RADA filed a complaint for the recovery of revenue shares on behalf of ETPI against Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company (PLDT). ETPI paid RADA for their services, but subsequently, the law firm was dissolved and replaced by a new law firm formed by some of its junior partners.

Despite the change in representation, RADA continued handling the case for ETPI, which involved three aspects: the recovery of revenue shares, preventive injunctive relief against PLDT's threats, and preventive injunctive relief against PLDT's interference with ETPI's foreign correspondents. However, ETPI terminated its retainer contract with RADA effective June 30, 1988, and directly negotiated a compromise with PLDT. This negotiation led to an amicable settlement that was entered as a judgment.

RADA filed a notice of attorney's lien and a motion for enforcement of attorney's lien, seeking to claim attorney's fees related to the case. However, the trial court denied the motion. RADA then filed a notice of appeal, but it was dismissed by the trial court on the ground that it should have been brought as a petition for review on certiorari. Consequently, RADA filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, which was subsequently remanded to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals, in turn, dismissed the petition, ruling that the trial court did not commit any abuse of discretion in denying RADA's motion for enforcement of attorney's lien.

(Note: Based on the given instructions, the issues and rulings of the case were not elaborated on.)

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the petitioner is entitled to recover attorney's fees for handling the case, despite the termination of their services and the client directly compromising the case with the adverse party.

RULING:

1. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitioner's motion for enforcement of attorney's lien. The court held that the trial court did not commit any abuse of discretion in denying the petitioner's motion. Even assuming that there was an error committed, it cannot be corrected through certiorari. Therefore, the petition was dismissed.

PRINCIPLES:

• Procedural rules are liberally construed in order to promote their objectives and assist the parties in obtaining just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action or proceeding.

• The rigid application of procedural rules may be exempted if it would frustrate substantial justice or bar the vindication of a legitimate grievance.

• The denial of an attorney's motion for enforcement of lien is subject to the discretion of the court, and the court's decision will not be overturned unless there is a clear abuse of discretion.