ATTY.
RICARDO B. BERMUDO, G.R. No. 172879
Petitioner,
Present:
CARPIO, J., Chairperson,
- versus - NACHURA,
PERALTA,
ABAD,
and
MENDOZA,
JJ.
FERMINA
TAYAG-ROXAS,
Respondent.
x
------------------------------------------------ x
FERMINA
TAYAG-ROXAS, G.R. No. 173364
Petitioner,
- versus -
Promulgated:
HON.
COURT OF APPEALS and
ATTY.
RICARDO BERMUDO,
Respondents. February 2, 2011
x
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
x
ABAD, J.:
These cases pertain to the right of
an administrator, who happened to be a lawyer, to collect attorney’s fees from
the sole heir for successfully representing the latter in the suit contesting her
right to inherit.
The Facts and the Case
On
October 19, 1979 Atty. Ricardo Bermudo (Atty. Bermudo), as executor, filed a
petition for his appointment as administrator of the estate of Artemio Hilario (Hilario)
and for the allowance and probate of the latter’s will before the Regional
Trial Court (RTC) of Angeles City. The
testator instituted Fermina Tayag-Roxas (Roxas) as his only heir but several
persons, who claimed to be Hilario’s relatives, opposed the petition. On October 28, 1987 the RTC rendered a
decision, allowing the will and recognizing Roxas as Hilario’s sole heir. On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed
the RTC decision. This Court sustained
the CA decision on December 7, 1992.
When
the decision constituting Roxas as the sole heir became final, Atty. Bermudo
who also served as counsel for her in the actions concerning her inheritance
filed a motion to fix his legal fees and to constitute a charging lien against
the estate for the legal services he rendered. On August 16, 1995 the RTC granted him fees
equivalent to 20% of the estate and constituted the same as lien on the
estate’s property. Roxas appealed the
order to the CA in CA-G.R. CV 53143.
On
July 27, 2000 the CA rendered a decision that modified the RTC Order, limiting
Atty. Bermudo’s compensation as administrator to what Section 7, Rule 85 of the
Rules of Court provides and making his lawyer’s fees 20% of the value of the
land belonging to the estate. Atty.
Bermudo subsequently filed a motion with the RTC for execution and appraisal of
the estate on which his 20% compensation would be based. On October 1, 2004 the RTC granted the motion
and ordered Roxas to pay Atty. Bermudo P12,644,300.00 as attorney’s fees
with interest at the rate of 6% per
annum. Roxas challenged the order
before the CA through a petition for certiorari.
On
December 19, 2005, using a different valuation of the land of the estate, the
CA ordered Roxas to pay Atty. Bermudo a reduced amount of P4,234,770.00
as attorney's fees with interest at 6% per
annum. Atty. Bermudo’s motion for
reconsideration having been denied, he filed a petition for review before this
Court in G.R. 172879. Roxas also filed a
motion for partial reconsideration of the CA decision and when this was denied,
she filed a petition for certiorari with this Court in G.R. 173364.
The Issues Presented
The issues
presented in these cases are:
1. Whether
or not the CA erred in not dismissing Roxas’ special civil action of certiorari when her remedy should have
been an appeal from the settlement of his account as administrator;
2. Whether
or not the CA erred in holding that Atty. Bermudo, as administrator, is
entitled to collect attorney’s fees; and
3. Whether
or not the CA erred in reducing Atty. Bermudo’s attorney’s fees from P12,644,300.00
to P4,234,770.00.
The Court’s Rulings
One.
Atty. Bermudo points out that Roxas’ remedy
for contesting the RTC order of execution against her should be an ordinary
appeal to the CA. He invokes Section 1,
Rule 109 of the Revised Rules of Court which enumerates the orders or judgments
in special proceedings from which parties may appeal. One of these is an order or judgment which
settles the account of an executor or administrator.[1] The rationale behind this multi-appeal mode
is to enable the rest of the case to proceed in the event that a separate and
distinct issue is resolved by the court and held to be final.[2]
But
the earlier award in Atty. Bermudo’s favor did not settle his account as
administrator. Rather, it fixed his
attorney’s fees for the legal services he rendered in the suit contesting
Roxas’ right as sole heir. Consequently,
Section 1 (d) of Rule 109 does not apply.
Actually, the CA decided with
finality the award of attorney’s fees in Atty. Bermudo’s favor in CA-G.R. CV
53143 when it fixed such fees at 20% of the value of the estate’s lands. On remand of the case to the RTC, Atty.
Bermudo filed a motion for execution of the award in his favor which could be
carried out only after the RTC shall have determined what represented 20% of
the value of the estate’s lands. The
fixing of such value at P12,644,300.00 was not appealable since it did
not constitute a new judgment but an implementation of a final one. Indeed, an order of execution is not appealable.[3] Consequently, Roxas’ remedy in contesting the
RTC’s exercise of discretion in ascertaining what constitutes 20% of the value
of the estate’s lands is a special civil action of certiorari.
Two. Roxas asserts that Atty. Bermudo is not
entitled to attorney’s fees but only to compensation as administrator in
accordance with Section 7, Rule 85 of the Rules of Court.
But Atty. Bermudo did not only serve
as administrator of the estate. He also
served as Roxas’ counsel in the suit that assailed her right as sole heir. Atty. Bermudo brought the contest all the way
up to this Court to defend her rights to her uncle’s estate. And Atty. Bermudo succeeded. Acting as counsel in that suit for Roxas was
not part of his duties as administrator of the estate. Consequently, it was but just that he is paid
his attorney’s fees.
Besides, Atty. Bermudo’s right to
attorney’s fees had been settled with finality in CA-G.R. CV 53143. This Court can no longer entertain Roxas’
lament that he is not entitled to those fees.
Three. Atty. Bermudo assails the CA’s reduction of
his attorney’s fees from P12,644,300.00 to P4,234,770.00. In fixing the higher amount, the RTC relied
on the advice of an amicus curiae
regarding the value of the lands belonging to the estate. But the CA found such procedure unwarranted,
set aside the RTC’s valuation, and used the values established by the Angeles
City Assessor for computing the lawyer’s fees of Atty. Bermudo. The Court finds no compelling reason to deviate
from the CA’s ruling. Given their wide
experience and the official nature of their work, the city assessors’ opinions
deserve great weight and reliability.[4] Thus, the Court must sustain the CA’s computation
based on the market values reflected on the schedule proposed by the Angeles
City Assessor.
WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP 87411
dated December 19, 2005.
SO ORDERED.
ROBERTO A. ABAD
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Associate
Justice Associate Justice
JOSE CATRAL MENDOZA
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the
above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to
the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Second Division
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII
of the Constitution and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, I certify that
the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before
the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
RENATO
C. CORONA
Chief Justice