Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1947 > July 1947 Decisions > G.R. No. L-1320 July 30, 1947 - SANTIAGO DEGALA v. PATPICIO C. CENIZA

078 Phil 791:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-1320. July 30, 1947.]

SANTIAGO DEGALA, Petitioner, v. PATPICIO C. CENIZA, Judge of First Instance of Ilocos Sur, and VALENTIN UMIPIG, as special administrator of the estate of Placida Mina, Respondents.

Antonio Directo for Petitioner.

J. Q. Quintillan for Respondents.

SYLLABUS


1. EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS; REMOVAL; DISCRETION OF COURT. — Under section 2 of Rule of Court No. 83, the removal of an administrator lies within the discretion of the court appointing him. The sufficiency of any ground for removal should thus be determined by said court, whose sensibilities are, in the first place, affected by any act or omission on the part of the administrator not conformable to or in disregard of the rules or the orders of the court.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; INTEREST OF ATTORNEY NOT INTEREST OF ADMINISTRATOR. — Any interest which the attorney for the administrator may nave in the estate under administration is exclusively personal to him, in which the administration can have nothing do.


D E C I S I O N


PARAS, J.:


The respondent Valentin Umipig was appointed special administrator of the estate of the deceased Placida Mina in civil case No. 3689 of the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Sur. In this original action for certiorari, the petitioner Santiago Degala complains of, and seeks relief from the failure or refusal of the respondent Judge, Honorable Patricio C. Ceniza, to remove said special administration The grounds upon which the petitioner based his various motions for removal in the Court of First Instance, may be summed up as follows: (1) That Valentin Umipig has an interest adverse to the estate under administration (2) That he is a stranger to the estate, not being in an way a beneficiary under the alleged will of Placida Mina. (3) That he has failed to include in his inventory some properties belonging to the estate. (4) That he has failed to pay certain taxes due from the estate. (5) That he has failed to render an accounting in spite of orders of the court.

The petitioner invokes section 2 of Rule of Court No. 83, which provides that "if an executor or administrator neglects to render his account and settle the estate according to law, or to perform an order or judgment of the court, or a duty expressly provided by these rules, or absconds, or becomes insane, or otherwise incapable or unsuitable t discharge the trust, the court may remove him, or, in its discretion, may permit him to resign."cralaw virtua1aw library

Under the very rule invoked by the petitioner, the removal of an administrator lies within the discretion of the court appointing him. The sufficiency of any ground or removal should thus be determined by said court, whose sensibilities are, in the first place, affected by any act or omission on the part of the administrator not conformable to or in disregard of the rules or the orders of the court. We cannot merely substitute our way of thinking for that of a lower court in matters under its discretionary power. And in the case at bar, we cannot hold that the respondent Judge gravely abused his discretion, particularly in view of the circumstance that the alleged grounds for removal are not in fact weighty.

We cannot agree to petitioner’s contention that simply because Jesus Q. Quintillan, former administrator removed by the court on the ground of adverse interest, is the attorney for the respondent administrator, the latter is necessarily disqualified on the same ground. Any interest which said attorney may have is exclusively personal to him, in which the respondent Valentin Umipig can have nothing to do.

With respect to the second ground relied upon by the petitioner, he admits that the respondent administrator, as a son of the deceased Crisanto Umipig, can represent his father as a trustee under section 3 of the will in question, although it is contended that the provision of said will regarding the creation of a trust, was declared null and void in the order of the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Sur of July 7, 1947. Upon examining said order, however, we find that petitioner’s contention is not correct, since it recites that "el Juzgado no resuelve por ahora on ocasion de esta mocion de sobreseimiento, si las disposiciones testamentarias en cuestion son nulas o validas."cralaw virtua1aw library

Whether the respondent administrator failed to include in his inventory some properties belonging to the estate, is a question of fact to be determined by the respondent Judge after the reception of necessary evidence. Indeed, in the order of the Court of First Instance of April 4, 1946, the clerk of said court was commissioned to receive evidence which the oppositors, one of whom is the petitioner, may have regarding the point.

It may be true that the respondent administrator failed to pay all the taxes due from the estate, but said failure may be due to lack of funds, and not to a wilful omission.

Regarding the alleged failure of the respondent administrator to render an accounting, it appears that he did so on January 28, 1947. Whether the statement of accounts was filed on time and whether the same is complete and correct, are matters addressed to the judgment and discretion of the respondent Judge. It may not be amiss to add that the latter will of course know when to resort to the bond filed by the respondent administrator who, by the way, is not alone in the trust, it appearing that Attorney Antonio Directo, counsel for the petitioner, was been appointed special co-administrator.

The petition is hereby dismissed, and it is so ordered with costs against the petitioner.

Moran, C.J., Feria, Pablo, Hilado, Bengzon, Hontiveros, Padilla and Tuason, JJ., concur.

Separate Opinions


PERFECTO, J., concurring:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

The granting of an extension of 10 days of the time within which special administrator Valentin Umipig should file the accounts of his administration appears to be so unreasonable to justify that, as prayed by petitioner, it be disturbed.

The facts alleged in the petition are not ground enough why lower court should be compelled to order the removal of said special administrator. There is enough ground for the lower court to exercise his discretion to the effect of ordering said removal, but its action in not ordering it does not appear to be arbitrary, abusive, or even unwise. The fact that the lower court had to issue warnings in order to compel said special administrator to perform its official duties offers basis enough to believe that said official is negligent, and negligence in the performance of official duty should not be countenanced, but ther should be dealt with sternly. It justifies removal from office. Negligence is always objectionable. When committed in public office, it is highly detrimental to public interest. The guilty ones should always be made to feel e weight of their responsibility and suffer the deserved sanction.

In our opinion, the petition must be denied.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






July-1947 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-524 July 2, 1947 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANGEL BEATO

    078 Phil 682

  • G.R. No. L-568 July 16, 1947 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUAN FRANCISCO

    078 Phil 694

  • G.R. No. L-322 July 28, 1947 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO MANAYAO, ET AL.

    078 Phil 721

  • G.R. No. L-407 July 28, 1947 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANIEL ALARCON

    078 Phil 732

  • G.R. No. L-962 July 28, 1947 - FELIX AZOTES v. MANUEL BLANCO, ET AL.

    078 Phil 739

  • G.R. No. L-1267 July 28, 1947 - LEONOR ARCEGA, ET AL. v. POTENCIANO PECSON, ET AL.

    078 Phil 743

  • G.R. No. L-1354 July 28, 1947 - FELIZA CAPISTRANO, ET AL. v. EMILIO PEÑA, ET AL.

    078 Phil 749

  • G.R. No. L-1121 July 29, 1947 - CONCHITA VDA. DE SALUDES v. GREGORIO PAJARILLO, ET AL.

    078 Phil 754

  • G.R. No. L-1235 July 29, 1947 - AMADO BUENAVENTURA v. EULALIO GARCIA, ET AL.

    078 Phil 759

  • G.R. No. L-226 July 30, 1947 - VIRGINIA STA. MARIA-GARCIA, ET AL. v. GUSTAVO SANCHO

    078 Phil 763

  • G.R. No. L-430 July 30, 1947 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO M. ABAD

    078 Phil 766

  • G.R. No. L-894 July 30, 1947 - LUIS F. GENERAL v. JOSE R. DE VENECIA, ET AL.

    078 Phil 780

  • G.R. No. L-1255 July 30, 1947 - CARLOS TOLEDANO v. FELIX SEVERINO

    078 Phil 783

  • G.R. No. L-1287 July 30, 1947 - ONG SIT v. EDMUNDO S. PICCIO

    078 Phil 785

  • G.R. No. L-1320 July 30, 1947 - SANTIAGO DEGALA v. PATPICIO C. CENIZA

    078 Phil 791

  • G.R. No. L-1335 July 30, 1947 - CECILIO BUENAVENTURA v. EMILIO PEÑA, ET AL.

    078 Phil 795

  • G.R. Nos. L-1400, L-1406 & L-1407 July 30, 1947 - FRANCISCO CUNAAN, ET AL. v. SOTERO RODAS, ET AL.

    078 Phil 800

  • G.R. No. 49160 July 30, 1947 - MARIANO A. DE CASTRO v. CASIMIRO TAMPARONG

    078 Phil 804

  • G.R. No. L-1031 July 31, 1947 - IRENEO CASTILLO, ET AL. v. ANACLETO B. RAMOS

    078 Phil 809

  • G.R. No. L-1082 July 31, 1947 - FLORA AYLON v. FERNANDO JUGO

    078 Phil 816

  • G.R. No. L-1095 July 31, 1947 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. SALVADOR GALLETO

    078 Phil 820

  • G.R. No. L-1156 July 31, 1947 - RICARDO ESPIRITU v. M. L. DE LA ROSA

    078 Phil 827

  • G.R. No. L-1302 July 31, 1947 - MIGUEL J. YSRAEL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    078 Phil 831

  • G.R. No. L-1319 July 31, 1947 - JUANA CANAFE v. HERMOGENES CALUAG, ET AL.

    078 Phil 836

  • G.R. No. L-1321 July 31, 1947 - ROBERTO LUPISAN v. FRANCISCO ALFONSO, ET AL.

    078 Phil 842

  • G.R. No. L-1419 July 31, 1947 - ROSARIO OCHING, ET AL. v. SOTERO RODAS, ET AL.

    078 Phil 846

  • G.R. No. L-1536 July 31, 1947 - RICARDO PARULAN v. SOTERO RODAS, ET AL.

    078 Phil 855

  • G.R. No. 49212 July 31, 1947 - ERIBERTO DE LAS ALAS v. EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS

    078 Phil 868