Hiyas Savings and Loan Bank vs CA

Hiyas Savings and Loan bank vs CA, Spouses Delfn Mendoza and Solita Santos and Spouses Felix Santos and Demetria a!"e!o #$ %o& '()*(, +!tober , -''Facts: RTC rendered decision and ordered that the plaintif shall pay Hiyas Savings and Loan Association the ollowing sums: ! "#$$%$$$ represent representing ing the principal principal amount o loan loan with &' interest interest per annum #! Ten percent percent ($') o the amount amount due as and *y way o attorney+s attorney+s ees, ees, and -! The costs costs o the suit! suit!  .une /% 010% private private respondents respondents deposited deposited in court court two treasury treasury chec2s in the amount o "
%3$$ in satisaction o 4udgment avoring Hiyas Savings and Loan 5an2 in a civil case! The amount o "&$%/-6!-6 was applied *y the petitioner as attorney+s ees! However% on August 1% 010% petitioner 7led an amended motion or e8ecution! "etitioner claimed that the total lia*ility o the private respondents was "&&1%0&!0#! Hence% there was still an unsatis7ed *alance which it claimed to *e "#$%#6$!-1 as $' o attorney+s ee rom the interest o principal o*ligation!  The motion was denied and dismissed *y CA! CA! 9ssue: hether or not the attorney+s ee will only *e *ased to $' o the principal amount due; Held:  There is no am*iguity as regards regards the amount o o attorney+s ees awarded! awarded! 9t is clear that the 7nal and e8ecutory decision o the RTC awarded ten percent ($') o the amount due as attorney+s ees! Since there was no