Alberto v. CA G.R No.

119088 Jun 30, 2000 Facts: This case involves the Complaint for collection of money filed by petitioner Atty. Alberto against Sps. Alano when the latter refused to pay her fees stipulated in their retainer agreement. Petitioner Atty. Alberto represented the spouses before the SEC case to recover real properties, money and other assets that may pertain to them by virtue of their stockholdings in the Natalia Realty, Inc. However, the SEC Case was later dismissed as the opposing parties reached a settlement without consulting petitioner. The RTC ruled in favor of petitioner and declared that the Attorneys fees shall constitute a lien on the property subject of the case. Atty. Alberto later found out that a portion of the subject property was sold to Sps. Alanos daughter, Yolanda as settlement before the parties moved to dismiss the case. Because of this, Atty. Alberto filed second Amended Complaint to declare the deed of sale void. The RTC dismissed the complaint for lack of cause of action and cancelled the attorneys lien on the TCT.

WON Atty. Alberto has cause of action to assail the deed of sale between Natalia Realty and Yolanda. Ruling: YES. By virtue of the retainer agreement, a right was created in her favor. This right was confirmed by the RTC in first case that petitioner filed against the spouses. Correspondingly, the spouses had the obligation to honor and not to violate the retainer agreement. However, the Sps. breached their obligation and worse, Alberto found that the Sps had no more leviable property as such was sold to Yolanda. Thus, Atty. Alberto not only have a cause of action against the Sps. Alano but also against Yolanda. The rule that in order to determine the cause of action the court must examine only the averments in the complaint has exceptions: 1st, All documents attached to a complaint, the due execution and genuineness of which are not denied under oath by the defendant, must be considered as part of the complaint without need of introducing evidence thereon. 2nd, Other pleadings submitted by the parties, in addition to the complaint, may be considered in deciding whether the complaint should be dismissed for lack of cause of action. All the pleadings attached should be considered in determining whether there was a sufficient cause of action as the order of dismissal is summary in nature. So long as they are procedurally responsive to the complaint, then they may be used to determine the sufficiency of the cause of action in the complaint. Strictly limiting the evaluation of the merits of the complaint to its averments or allegations would limit the interpretation of the rule.