Attorney's Lien: Rayos Vs Hernandez. G.R. No. 169079, February 12, 2007
Attorney's Lien: Rayos Vs Hernandez. G.R. No. 169079, February 12, 2007
Attorney's Lien: Rayos Vs Hernandez. G.R. No. 169079, February 12, 2007
Attorney’s Lien
An attorney's lien is of two kinds: one is called general, retaining or possessory lien and the
other is special, particular, or charging lien.
Retaining lien is the right of an attorney to retain funds, documents and papers of his client who
have lawfully come into his possession and may retain the same until his lawful fees and
disbursements have been paid and may apply such funds to the satisfaction thereof, as
provided in section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. However, a lawyer is not entitled to
unilaterally appropriate his client’s money for himself by the mere fact alone that the client owes
him attorney’s fees. (Rayos vs Hernandez. G.R. No. 169079, February 12, 2007)
A charging lien is the right of a lawyer to the same extent upon all judgments for the payment of
money, and executions issued in pursuance of such judgments, which he has secured in a
litigation of his client, from and after the time when he shall have the caused a statement of his
claim of such lien to be entered upon the records of the court rendering such judgment, or
issuing such execution, and shall have the caused written notice thereof to be delivered to his
client and to the adverse party; and he shall have the same right and power over such
judgments and executions as his client would have to enforce his lien and secure the payment
of his just fees and disbursements. In Palanca vs Pecson, it was stated that the provision
permits the registration of an attorney's lien, although the lawyer concerned does not finish the
case successfully in favor of his client, because an attorney who quits or is dismissed before the
conclusion of his assigned task is as much entitled to the protection of the rule. Otherwise, a
client may easily frustrate its purpose.