June 2012 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
[G.R. No. 192085 : June 18, 2012]
CARIDAD SEGARRA SAZON v. LETECIA VASQUEZ-MENANCIO, REPRESENTED BY ATTORNEY-IN-FACT EDGAR S. SEGARRA.
G.R. No. 192085 (Caridad Segarra Sazon v. Letecia Vasquez-Menancio, represented by attorney-in-fact Edgar S. Segarra). � For consideration is the Partial Motion for Reconsideration (MR) filed by Caridad Segarra Sazon (petitioner) arguing that the issue of the amount of salary she is entitled to as the administrator of the properties of Letecia Vasquez-Menancio (respondent) should be included in the issues to be remanded to the regional trial court (RTC).
It is argued by petitioner that this Court erred in applying the equitable principle of quantum meruit in determining the amount to be awarded as salary in her favor, because this principle should only be applied when there is no contract between the parties. In this case however, the parties already had an agreement that petitioner would fix her own salary.
Petitioner further submits that an administrator's salary should be considered as an expense. Since this Court ordered the RTC to receive evidence to determine the amount of the expenses incurred, she contends that she should be given a chance to present evidence to prove the amount she is entitled to as salary. Ultimately, she aims to prove that she is entitled to a salary more than the P1 ,000 per month for 15 years granted to her by the RTC.
This Court maintains its ruling and denies the instant Partial Motion for Reconsideration.
There is no doubt that petitioner should be compensated for the services she rendered. However, even though the parties agreed that petitioner had the power to fix her own salary, she failed to do so within the appropriate time. Thus, the RTC correctly applied the doctrine of quantum meruit.
This Court also finds that the amount of P1,000 per month for 1 5 years is a just, reasonable, and fair valuation of the services rendered by petitioner.
The salary of the administrator should be considered as an expense on respondent's part. We find it unnecessary to order the trial court to receive evidence to determine the exact amount of this particular expense, when the records at hand are sufficient to determine its value.cralaw
WHEREFORE, the instant Partial Motion for Reconsideration is hereby DENIED with FINALITY. Basic issues raised have already been passed upon in the Decision and no substantial arguments have been raised here to warrant the reversal of the questioned Decision. No further pleadings shall be entertained. Entry of Judgment shall be made in due course.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZON
Deputy Division Clerk of Court