THIRD DIVISION
|
Quasha
Ancheta PeÑa and Nolasco Law Office for its own behalf, and representing the
Heirs of Raymond TrivierE,
Petitioners, - versus
- LCN CONSTRUCTION CORP., Respondent. |
|
G.R. No. 174873 Present: YNARES-SANTIAGO, J., Chairperson, AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, CHICO-NAZARIO, NACHURA,
and REYES,
JJ. Promulgated: August 26, 2008 |
x - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
D E C I S I O N
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
This is a
Petition for Review under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court with
petitioners Quasha Ancheta Peña and Nolasco Law Office (Quasha Law Office) and
the Heirs of Raymond Triviere praying for the reversal of the Decision[1]
dated 11 May 2006 and Resolution[2]
dated 22 September 2006 of the Court of Appeals granting in part the Petition
for Certiorari filed by respondent
LCN Construction Corporation (LCN) in CA-G.R. SP No. 81296.
The factual antecedents of the case
are as follows:
Raymond Triviere passed away on
In February 1995, Atty. Syquia and
Atty. Quasha filed before the RTC a Motion for Payment of their litigation
expenses. Citing their failure to submit
an accounting of the assets and liabilities of the estate under administration,
the RTC denied in May 1995 the Motion for Payment of Atty. Syquia and Atty.
Quasha.
In 1996, Atty. Quasha also passed away. Atty. Redentor Zapata (Zapata), also of the Quasha Law Office, took over as the counsel of the Triviere children, and continued to help Atty. Syquia in the settlement of the estate.
On
(1)
That the instant Petition was filed on
(2) That, together with Co-administrator Atty. William H. Quasha, they have performed diligently and conscientiously their duties as Co-administrators, having paid the required Estate tax and settled the various claims against the Estate, totaling approximately twenty (20) claims, and the only remaining claim is the unmeritorious claim of LCN Construction Corp., now pending before this Honorable Court;
(3)
That for all their work since April 22,
1988, up to July 1992, or for four (4) years, they were only given the amount
of P20,000.00 each on November 28, 1988; and another P50,00.00
each on October 1991; and the amount of P100,000.00 each on July 1992;
or a total of P170,000.00 to cover their administration fees, counsel
fees and expenses;
(4)
That through their work, they were able
to settle all the testate (sic)
claims except the remaining baseless claim of LCN Construction Corp., and were
able to dismiss two (2) foreign claims, and were also able to increase the
monetary value of the estate from roughly over P1Million to the present P4,738,558.63
as of August 25, 2002 and maturing on September 27, 2002; and the money has
always been with the Philippine National Bank, as per the Order of this
Honorable Court;
(5)
That since July 1992, when the
co-administrators were paid P100,000.00 each, nothing has been paid to
either Administrator Syquia or his client, the widow Consuelo Triviere; nor to
the Quasha Law Offices or their clients, the children of the deceased Raymond
Triviere;
(6) That as this Honorable Court will notice, Administrator Syquia has always been present during the hearings held for the many years of this case; and the Quasha Law Offices has always been represented by its counsel, Atty. Redentor C. Zapata; and after all these years, their clients have not been given a part of their share in the estate;
(7) That Administrator Syquia, who is a lawyer, is entitled to additional Administrator’s fees since, as provided in Section 7, Rule 85 of the Revised Rules of Court:
“x x x where the estate is large, and the settlement has been attended with great difficulty, and has required a high degree of capacity on the part of the executor or administrator, a greater sum may be allowed…”
In addition, Atty. Zapata has also been present in all the years of this case. In addition, they have spent for all the costs of litigation especially the transcripts, as out-of-pocket expenses.
(8)
That considering all the foregoing,
especially the fact that neither the Administrator or his client, the widow;
and the Quasha Law Offices or their clients, the children of the deceased, have
received any money for more than ten (10) years now, they respectfully move
that the amount of P1Million be taken from the Estate funds, to be
divided as follows:
a)
P450,000.00 as share of the
children of the deceased [Triviere] who are represented by the Quasha Ancheta
Peña & Nolasco Law Offices;
b)
P200,000.00 as attorney’s fees and
litigation expenses for the Quasha Ancheta Peña & Nolasco Law Offices;
c)
P150,000.00 as share for the widow
of the deceased [Raymond Triviere], Amy Consuelo Triviere; and
d)
P200,000.00 for the administrator
Syquia, who is also the counsel of the widow; and for litigation costs and
expenses.
LCN, as the only remaining claimant[4]
against the Intestate Estate of the Late Raymond Triviere in Special
Proceedings Case No. M-1678, filed its Comment on/Opposition to the afore-quoted
Motion on P55,000.00. LCN further asserted that contrary to what
was stated in the second Motion for Payment, Section 7, Rule 85 of the Revised
Rules of Court was inapplicable,[5]
since the administrators failed to establish that the estate was large, or that
its settlement was attended with great difficulty, or required a high degree of
capacity on the part of the administrators.
Finally, LCN argued that its claims are still outstanding and chargeable
against the estate of the late Raymond Triviere; thus, no distribution should
be allowed until they have been paid; especially considering that as of 25 August 2002, the claim of
LCN against the estate of the late Raymond Triviere amounted to P6,016,570.65
as against the remaining assets of the estate totaling P4,738,558.63,
rendering the latter insolvent.
On
The RTC declared that there was no more need for accounting of the assets and liabilities of the estate considering that:
[T]here appears to be no need for an accounting as the estate has no more assets except the money deposited with the Union Bank of the Philippines under Savings Account No. 12097-000656-0 x x x; on the estate taxes, records shows (sic) that the BIR Revenue Region No. 4-B2 Makati had issued a certificate dated April 27, 1988 indicating that the estate taxes has been fully paid.[7]
As to the payment of fees of Atty.
Syquia and the Quasha Law Office, the RTC found as follows:
[B]oth the Co-Administrator and counsel for the deceased (sic) are entitled to the payment for the services they have rendered and accomplished for the estate and the heirs of the deceased as they have over a decade now spent so much time, labor and skill to accomplish the task assigned to them; and the last time the administrators obtained their fees was in 1992.[8]
Hence, the RTC granted the second
Motion for Payment; however, it reduced the sums to be paid, to wit:
In view of the foregoing considerations, the instant motion is hereby GRANTED. The sums to be paid to the co-administrator and counsel for the heirs of the deceased Triviere are however reduced.
Accordingly, the co-administrator Atty. Syquia and aforenamed counsel are authorized to pay to be sourced from the Estate of the deceased as follows:
a)
P450,000.00 as share of the
children of the deceased who are represented by the Quasha, Ancheta, Pena,
Nolasco Law Offices;
b)
P100,000.00 as attorney’s fees and
litigation expenses for said law firm;
c)
P150,000.00 as share for the widow
of the deceased Amy Consuelo Triviere; and
d)
P100,000.00 for the Co-administrator
Atty. Enrique P. Syquia and for litigation costs and expenses.[9]
LCN filed a Motion for Reconsideration[10]
of the foregoing Order on
On
(1) The administrator’s claim for attorney’s fees, aside from being prohibited under paragraph 3, Section 7 of Rule 85 is, together with administration and litigation expenses, in the nature of a claim against the estate which should be ventilated and resolved pursuant to Section 8 of Rule 86;
(2)
The awards violate Section 1, Rule 90 of
the Rules of Court, as there still exists its (LCN’s) unpaid claim in the sum
of P6,016,570.65; and
(3) The alleged deliberate failure of the co-administrators to submit an accounting of the assets and liabilities of the estate does not warrant the Court’s favorable action on the motion for payment.[13]
On
While the Court of Appeals conceded
that Atty. Syquia and the Quasha Law Office, as the administrators of the
estate of the late Raymond Triviere, were entitled to administrator’s fees and
litigation expenses, they could not claim the same from the funds of the
estate. Referring to Section 7, Rule 85
of the Revised Rules of Court, the appellate court reasoned that the award of
expenses and fees in favor of executors and administrators is subject to the
qualification that where the executor or administrator is a lawyer, he shall
not charge against the estate any professional fees for legal services rendered
by him. Instead, the Court of Appeals
held that the attorney’s fees due Atty. Syquia and the Quasha Law Offices
should be borne by their clients, the widow and children of the late Raymond
Triviere, respectively.
The appellate court likewise revoked
the P450,000.00 share and P150,000.00 share awarded by the RTC to
the children and widow of the late Raymond Triviere, respectively, on the basis
that Section 1, Rule 91 of the Revised Rules of Court proscribes the
distribution of the residue of the estate until all its obligations have been
paid.
The appellate court, however, did not
agree in the position of LCN that the administrators’ claims against the estate
should have been presented and resolved in accordance with Section 8 of Rule 86
of the Revised Rules of Court. Claims against
the estate that require presentation under Rule 86 refer to “debts or demands
of a pecuniary nature which could have been enforced against the decedent
during his lifetime and which could have been reduced to simple judgment and
among which are those founded on contracts.”
The Court of
Appeals also found the failure of the administrators to render an accounting
excusable on the basis of Section 8, Rule 85 of the Revised Rules of Court.[14]
Finding the
Petition for Certiorari of LCN partly
meritorious, the Court of Appeals decreed:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is hereby PARTLY GRANTED. The assailed Orders of the public respondent are hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that –
(1)
the shares awarded to the heirs of the
deceased Triviere in the assailed Order of
(2) the attorney’s fees awarded in favor of the co-administrators are hereby DELETED. However, inasmuch as the assailed order fails to itemize these fees from the litigation fees/administrator’s fees awarded in favor of the co-administrators, public respondent is hereby directed to determine with particularity the fees pertaining to each administrator.[15]
Petitioner filed a Motion for
Reconsideration[16] of the
In sum, private respondents did not earlier dispute [herein respondent LCN’s] claim in its petition that the law firm and its lawyers served as co-administrators of the estate of the late Triviere. It is thus quite absurd for the said law firm to now dispute in the motion for reconsideration its being a co-administrator of the estate.
[Herein petitioners], through counsel, likewise appear to be adopting in their motion for reconsideration a stance conflicting with their earlier theory submitted to this Court. Notably, the memorandum for [petitioner] heirs states that the claim for attorney’s fees is supported by the facts and law. To support such allegation, they contend that Section 7 (3) of Rule 85 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure finds no application to the instant case since “what is being charged are not professional fees for legal services rendered but payment for administration of the Estate which has been under the care and management of the co-administrators for the past fourteen (14) years.” Their allegation, therefore, in their motion for reconsideration that Section 7 (3) of Rule 85 is inapplicable to the case of Quasha Law Offices because it is “merely seeking payment for legal services rendered to the estate and for litigation expenses” deserves scant consideration.
x x x x
WHEREFORE, premises considered, private respondents’ motion for reconsideration is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. [18]
Exhausting
all available legal remedies, petitioners filed the present Petition for Review
on Certiorari based on the following assignment of errors:
I.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN RULING THAT THE AWARD IN FAVOR OF THE HEIRS OF THE LATE RAYMOND TRIVIERE IS ALREADY A DISTRIBUTION OF THE RESIDUE OF THE ESTATE.
II.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NULLIFYING THE AWARD OF ATTORNEY’S FEES IN FAVOR OF THE CO-ADMINISTRATORS
The Court of Appeals modified the P450,000.00 and P150,000.00
in favor of the children and widow of the late Raymond Triviere,
respectively. The appellate court
adopted the position of LCN that the claim of LCN was an obligation of the
estate which was yet unpaid and, under Section 1, Rule 90 of the Revised Rules
of Court, barred the distribution of the residue of the estate.
Petitioners, though, insist that the
awards in favor of the petitioner children and widow of the late Raymond
Triviere is not a distribution of the
residue of the estate, thus, rendering Section 1, Rule 90 of
the Revised Rules of Court inapplicable.
Section 1, Rule 90 of the Revised Rules of Court provides:
Section 1. When order for distribution of residue made. – When the debts, funeral charges, and expenses of administration, the allowance to the widow, and inheritance tax, if any, chargeable to the estate in accordance with law, have been paid, the court, on the application of the executor or administrator, or of a person interested in the estate, and after hearing upon notice, shall assign the residue of the estate to the persons entitled to the same, naming them and the proportions, or parts, to which each is entitled, and such persons may demand and recover their respective shares from the executor or administrator, or any other person having the same in his possession. If there is a controversy before the court as to who are the lawful heirs of the deceased person or as to the distributive shares to which each person is entitled under the law, the controversy shall be heard and decided as in ordinary cases.
No
distribution shall be allowed until the payment of the obligations above
mentioned has been made or provided for, unless the distributees, or any of
them, give a bond, in a sum to be fixed by the court, conditioned for the
payment of said obligations within such time as the court directs.
According to petitioners, the
A perusal of the P4,738,558.63
value of the estate, the petitioner children and widow were being awarded by
the RTC, in its P600,000.00. Evidently, the remaining portion of the
estate still needs to be settled. The
intestate proceedings were not yet concluded, and the RTC still had to hear and
rule on the pending claim of LCN against the estate of the late Raymond
Triviere and only thereafter can it distribute the residue of the estate, if
any, to his heirs.
While the awards in favor of
petitioner children and widow made in the RTC Order dated
Section 2, Rule 109 of the Revised
Rules of Court expressly recognizes advance distribution of the estate, thus:
Section 2.
Advance distribution in special
proceedings. – Notwithstanding a pending controversy or appeal in
proceedings to settle the estate of a decedent, the court may, in its
discretion and upon such terms as it may deem proper and just, permit that
such part of the estate as may not be affected by the controversy or appeal be
distributed among the heirs or legatees, upon compliance with the conditions
set forth in Rule 90 of these rules. (Emphases supplied.)
The second paragraph of Section 1 of
Rule 90 of the Revised Rules of Court allows the distribution of the estate
prior to the payment of the obligations mentioned therein, provided that “the
distributees, or any of them, gives a bond, in a sum to be fixed by the court,
conditioned for the payment of said obligations within such time as the court
directs.”
In sum, although it is within the
discretion of the RTC whether or not to permit the advance distribution of the
estate, its exercise of such discretion should be qualified by the following:
[1] only part of the estate that is not affected by any pending controversy or
appeal may be the subject of advance distribution (Section 2, Rule 109); and
[2] the distributees must post a bond, fixed by the court, conditioned for the
payment of outstanding obligations of the estate (second paragraph of Section
1, Rule 90). There is no showing that
the RTC, in awarding to the petitioner children and widow their shares in the
estate prior to the settlement of all its obligations, complied with these two
requirements or, at the very least, took the same into consideration. Its Order of P6,016,570.65, already in
excess of the P4,738,558.63 reported total value of the estate, the RTC should
have been more prudent in approving the advance distribution of the same.
Petitioners earlier invoked Dael
v. Intermediate Appellate Court,,[19] where the Court
sustained an Order granting partial distribution of an estate.
However, Dael is not even on
all fours with the case at bar, given that the Court therein found that:
Where, however, the estate has sufficient assets to ensure equitable distribution of the inheritance in accordance with law and the final judgment in the proceedings and it does not appear there are unpaid obligations, as contemplated in Rule 90, for which provisions should have been made or a bond required, such partial distribution may be allowed. (Emphasis supplied.)
No similar determination on
sufficiency of assets or absence of any outstanding obligations of the estate
of the late Raymond Triviere was made by the RTC in this case. In fact, there is a pending claim by LCN
against the estate, and the amount thereof exceeds the value of the entire
estate.
Furthermore, in Dael, the
Court actually cautioned that partial distribution of the decedent’s estate
pending final termination of the testate or intestate proceeding should as much
as possible be discouraged by the courts, and, except in extreme cases, such
form of advances of inheritance should not be countenanced. The reason for this rule is that courts should
guard with utmost zeal and jealousy the estate of the decedent to the end that
the creditors thereof be adequately protected and all the rightful heirs be
assured of their shares in the inheritance.
Hence, the Court does not find that the Court of Appeals erred in disallowing the advance award of shares by the RTC to petitioner children and the widow of the late Raymond Triviere.
II
On the second assignment of error,
petitioner Quasha Law Office contends that it is entitled to the award of
attorney’s fees and that the third paragraph of Section 7, Rule 85 of the
Revised Rules of Court, which reads:
Section 7. What expenses and fees allowed executor or administrator. Not to charge for services as attorney. Compensation provided by will controls unless renounced. x x x.
x x x x
When the executor
or administrator is an attorney, he shall not charge against the
estate any professional fees for legal services rendered by him. (Emphasis supplied.)
is
inapplicable to it. The afore-quoted
provision is clear and unequivocal and needs no statutory construction. Here, in attempting to exempt itself from the coverage
of said rule, the Quasha Law Office presents conflicting arguments to justify
its claim for attorney’s fees against the estate. At one point, it alleges that the award of
attorney’s fees was payment for its administration of the estate of the late
Raymond Triviere; yet, it would later renounce that it was an
administrator.
In the pleadings filed by the Quasha
Law Office before the Court of Appeals, it referred to itself as
co-administrator of the estate.
In the Comment submitted to the
appellate court by Atty. Doronila, the member-lawyer then assigned by the
Quasha Law Office to the case, it stated that:
The
It would again in the same pleading claim to be the “co-administrator and counsel for the heirs of the late Raymond Triviere.”[21]
Finally, the Memorandum it submitted
to the Court of Appeals on behalf of its clients, the petitioner-children of
the late Raymond Triviere, the Quasha Law Office alleged that:
2.
The petition assails the Order of the Honorable Regional Trial Court of Makati,
Branch 63 granting the Motion for Payment filed by Co-Administrators Atty.
Enrique P. Syquia and the undersigned counsel together with the children of
the deceased Raymond Triviere, and the Order dated
x x x x
I. Statement of Antecedent Facts
x x x x
4.
On
Petitioner Quasha Law Office asserts that it is not within the purview of Section 7, Rule 85 of the Revised Rules of Court since it is not an appointed administrator of the estate.[23] When Atty. Quasha passed away in 1996, Atty. Syquia was left as the sole administrator of the estate of the late Raymond Triviere. The person of Atty. Quasha was distinct from that of petitioner Quasha Law Office; and the appointment of Atty. Quasha as administrator of the estate did not extend to his law office. Neither could petitioner Quasha Law Office be deemed to have substituted Atty. Quasha as administrator upon the latter’s death for the same would be in violation of the rules on the appointment and substitution of estate administrators, particularly, Section 2, Rule 82 of the Revised Rules of Court.[24] Hence, when Atty. Quasha died, petitioner Quasha Law Office merely helped in the settlement of the estate as counsel for the petitioner children of the late Raymond Triviere.
In its Memorandum before this Court, however, petitioner Quasha Law Office argues that “what is being charged are not professional fees for legal services rendered but payment for administration of the Estate which has been under the care and management of the co-administrators for the past fourteen (14) years.”[25]
On the other hand, in the Motion for Payment filed
with the RTC on P200,000.00 as “attorney’s fees
and litigation expenses.” Being lumped
together, and absent evidence to the contrary, the P200,000.00 for
attorney’s fees and litigation expenses prayed for by the petitioner Quasha Law
Office can be logically and reasonably presumed to be in connection with cases
handled by said law office on behalf of the estate. Simply, petitioner Quasha Law Office is
seeking attorney’s fees as compensation for the legal services it rendered in
these cases, as well as reimbursement of the litigation expenses it incurred
therein.
The Court notes with disfavor the
sudden change in the theory by petitioner Quasha Law Office. Consistent with
discussions in the preceding paragraphs, Quasha Law Office initially asserted
itself as co-administrator of the estate before the courts. The records do not belie this fact.
Petitioner Quasha Law Office later on denied it was substituted in the place of
Atty. Quasha as administrator of the estate only upon filing a Motion for
Reconsideration with the Court of Appeals, and then again before this Court. As
a general rule, a party cannot change his theory of the case or his cause of
action on appeal.[26] When a party adopts a certain theory in the
court below, he will not be permitted to
change his theory on appeal, for to permit him to do so would not only be
unfair to the other party but it would also be offensive to the basic rules of
fair play, justice and due process.[27]
Points of law, theories, issues and arguments not brought to the attention of
the lower court need not be, and ordinarily will not be, considered by a
reviewing court, as these cannot be raised for the first time at such late
stage.[28]
This rule, however, admits of certain exceptions.[29] In the interest of justice and within the
sound discretion of the appellate court, a party may change his legal theory on
appeal, only when the factual bases thereof would not require presentation of
any further evidence by the adverse party in order to enable it to properly
meet the issue raised in the new theory.[30]
On the foregoing considerations, this Court finds it
necessary to exercise leniency on the rule against changing of theory on appeal,
consistent with the rules of fair play and in the interest of justice. Petitioner Quasha Law Office presented
conflicting arguments with respect to whether or not it was co-administrator of
the estate. Nothing in the records,
however, reveals that any one of the lawyers of Quasha Law Office was indeed a
substitute administrator for Atty. Quasha upon his death.
The court has jurisdiction to appoint an
administrator of an estate by granting letters of administration to a person
not otherwise disqualified or incompetent to serve as such, following the
procedure laid down in Section 6, Rule 78 of the Rules of Court.
Corollary thereto, Section 2, Rule 82 of the Rules
of Court provides in clear and unequivocal terms the modes for replacing an
administrator of an estate upon the death of an administrator, to wit:
Section 2. Court
may remove or accept resignation of executor or administrator. Proceedings upon
death, resignation, or removal.
x x x.
When an executor or administrator dies, resigns, or is
removed the remaining executor or administrator may administer the trust alone,
unless
the court grants letters to someone to act with him. If there is no
remaining executor or administrator, administration may be granted to any
suitable person.
The
records of the case are wanting in evidence that Quasha Law Office or any of
its lawyers substituted Atty. Quasha as co-administrator of the estate. None of the documents attached pertain to the
issuance of letters of administration to petitioner Quasha Law Office or any of
its lawyers at any time after the demise of Atty. Quasha in 1996. This Court is thus inclined to give credence
to petitioner’s contention that while it rendered legal services for the
settlement of the estate of Raymond Triviere since the time of Atty. Quasha’s
death in 1996, it did not serve as co-administrator thereof, granting that it
was never even issued letters of administration.
The attorney’s fees, therefore, cannot be covered by the prohibition in the third paragraph of Section 7, Rule 85 of the Revised Rules of Court against an attorney, to charge against the estate professional fees for legal services rendered by them.
However, while petitioner Quasha Law Office, serving
as counsel of the Triviere children from the time of death of Atty. Quasha in
1996, is entitled to attorney’s fees and litigation expenses of P100,000.00
as prayed for in the Motion for Payment dated 3 September 2002, and as awarded
by the RTC in its 12 June 2003 Order, the same may be collected from the shares
of the Triviere children, upon final distribution of the estate, in
consideration of the fact that the Quasha Law Office, indeed, served as counsel
(not anymore as co-administrator), representing and performing legal services for
the Triviere children in the settlement of the estate of their deceased
father.
Finally, LCN prays that as the
contractor of the house (which the decedent caused to be built and is now part
of the estate) with a preferred claim thereon, it should already be awarded P2,500,000.00,
representing one half (1/2) of the proceeds from the sale of said house. The Court shall not take cognizance of and
rule on the matter considering that, precisely, the merits of the claim of LCN
against the estate are still pending the proper determination by the RTC in the
intestate proceedings below.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition
for Review on Certiorari is hereby PARTLY GRANTED. The Decision dated
1) Petitioner
Quasha Law Office is entitled to attorney’s fees of ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS
(P100,000.00), for legal services rendered for the Triviere children in
the settlement of the estate of their deceased father, the same to be paid by
the Triviere children in the manner herein discussed; and
2) Attorneys
Enrique P. Syquia and William H. Quasha are entitled to the payment of their
corresponding administrators’ fees, to be determined by the RTC handling
Special Proceedings Case No. M-1678, Branch 63 of the Makati RTC, the same to
be chargeable to the estate of Raymond Trieviere.
SO ORDERED.
|
|
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIOAssociate Justice |
WE
CONCUR:
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
Associate Justice
Associate Justice
RUBEN T. REYES
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above
Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the
writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate
Justice
Chairperson, Third Division
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII
of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, it is hereby
certified that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court’s Division.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
[1] Penned
by Associate Justice Rodrigo V. Cosico with Associate Justices Regalado E.
Maambong and Lucenito N. Tagle, concurring; rollo,
pp. 43-52.
[2]
[3] Rollo, pp. 72-76.
[4] Respondent
is a building contractor collecting payment for services rendered to the late
Raymond Triviere in the construction of a house together with civil works on
change orders and miscellaneous additional works. The claim in the amount of P6,016,570.65
allegedly represents the unpaid principal balance of the original contract,
change orders, miscellaneous additional works, security, insurance, accrued
interest and attorney’s fees due and demandable from the Estate.
[5] Rollo, pp. 77-82.
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
Section 8, Rule 85 of the Rules of Court provides –
Sec.
8. When executor or administrator to
render account. - Every executor or administrator shall render an account
of his administration within one (1) year from the time of receiving letters
testamentary or of administration, unless the court otherwise directs
because of extensions of time for presenting claims against, or paying the
debts of, the estate, or for disposing of the estate; and he shall render such
further accounts as the court may require until the estate is wholly settled.
[15] Rollo, p. 51.
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19] G.R.
No. 68873,
[20] CA rollo, p. 171.
[21]
[22]
[23] Rollo, p. 19.
[24] Section 2. Court may remove or accept resignation of executor or administrator;
Proceedings upon death, resignation, or removal. – x x x When an executor
or administrator dies, resigns, or is removed the remaining executor or
administrator may administer the trust alone, unless the court grants letters
to someone to act with him. x x x.
[25] Petitioners’
Memorandum; rollo, p. 228.
[26] Mon v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
118292, 14 April 2004, 427 SCRA 165, 171; Lianga
Lumber Company v. Lianga Timber Co., Inc., 166 Phil. 661, 687 (1977).
[27] Naval
v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 167412,
[28] Sta. Rosa Realty
Development Corporation v. Amante, G.R. No. 112526,
[29] Capacete v. Baroro, supra note 27.
[30] Lianga Lumber Company v. Lianga Timber Co.,
Inc., supra note 26.