1. The Law Firm of Raymundo Armovit vs CA and Bengson Commercial Building Inc.

Facts
Petitioner was the legal counsel of Bengson Commercial Building Inc. (BCBI) when the latter filed an
action against GSIS to annul the extrajudicial foreclosure of its real estate and chattel mortgages, which
were used to secure a loan of P4.25M that it had taken out with the GSIS.
The RTC ruled in favor of respondent BCBI, prompting GSIS to appeal. The CA affirmed the RTC's ruling
and ordered GSIS to reimburse BCBI the amount of P2,760,000 as rentals earned by one of its properties
(The Regent Theater). Atty. Armovit sought the execution thereof.
Subsequently however, BCBI directed Armovit not to take part in the execution proceedings and ignored
his billings (supposedly 20% contingent fee (P552,000) of the amount (P2,760,000) recovered by BCBI).
Armovit thus moved for the entry of an attorney's lien in the case records, but he later on withdrew this
due to ongoing efforts to amicably settle with BCBI. The Court approved the withdrawal, and directed the
parties to faithfully comply with their duties.
However, BCBI only paid Armovit the amount of P300,000, which the Court nonetheless deemed to be
faithful compliance with its obligation. Armovit's MR and appeal to the CA were both denied, thus
prompting an appeal to the Supreme Court. The SC granted it, upholding Armovit's claim for the balance
of P252,000 more, pursuant to the contingent fee agreement. Particularly, the body of its decision stated
that a claim for 20% of all recoveries is not unreasonable, while the fallo ordered the payment of
P252,000 to petitioner.
The bone of contention in this case is the amount of the contingent fee petitioner firm is entitled to. After
the SC granted its appeal, petitioner filed with the RTC an Omnibus Motion praying for a final assessment
of its attorney's fees to be computed at 20% of the value of all of BCBI's recovered properties (not just
the rental arrearages paid to it). In short, Armovit is claiming more than the original amount of P552,000.
Both the RTC and the CA denied the said motion, prompting petitioner to file the present Petition and or
Motion for Execution (of the SC's decision granting the contingent fee) with a joint petition for certiorari.
Issue/s
w/n the lower courts erred in ruling that the petitioner's attorney's fees are limited to 20% of rental
arrearages ONLY, excluding the rest of the recoveries made by BCBI
Held
NO, the petition is dismissed.
Ratio
The fallo of the SC's decision ordered the payment of the sum of P252,000, nothing more, nothing less.
Petitioner's claim in excess of this amount relies on the statement in the body of the decision that "we do
not find Atty. Armovit's claim for twenty percent of all recoveries to be unreasonable." However, an order
of execution is based on the dispositive portion, not on the body, of the decision. When there is a conflict
between the dispositive portion and the body of the judgment, it is the former that prevails over the latter.