ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 139892. October 2, 2000]

IBARRA S. SANTOS vs. CA, et al.

FIRST DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated OCT 2 2000.

G.R. No. 139892 (Ibarra S. Santos vs. Court of Appeals, et al.)

This petition for review under Rule 45 seeks the reversal of the Decision of the Court of Appeals, dated 24 February 1999 in CA-G.R. SP No. 42286, entitled "Soliman Santos, et al., vs. Hon. Zosimo V. Escano, et al.," which annulled and set aside the appointment of petitioner Ibarra Santos as the administrator of the intestate estate of Fidela Santos.

The antecedent of this case are as follows:

Petitioner and private respondents are the children of Fidela S. Santos who died intestate on 17 December 1978. During the settlement of the decedent's intestate estate before the Regional Trial Court of Para�aque, Branch 259, Judge Zosimo Escano appointed petitioner as the regular administrator of the said estate through an Order dated 30 September 1996. 1 Rollo , p. 108. Since his siblings opposed the petitioner's appointment as administrator, private respondents filed a special civil action for certiorari before the Court of Appeals where it was claimed the Judge Escano acted with grave abuse of discretion in appointing petitioner as administrator. During the pendency of the proceedings before the Court of Appeals, private respondents filed a "Motion to Sanction or Cite Respondent Judge in Contempt." Accordingly, the Court of Appeals, on 28 August 1998, issued a resolution ordering Judge Escano to comment on the said motion. No comment was filed by Judge Escano. In its Decision dated 24 February 1999, the Court of Appeals annulled and set aside the order of the trial court and held Judge Escano guilty of indirect contempt. The dispositive portion reads:

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED, and the Order dated September 30, 1996 of the Regional Trial Court of Para�aque, Branch 259, in SP. Proc. No. 95-030 is hereby ANNULLED and (sic) SET ASIDE. The respondent court is hereby ordered to immediately conduct proceedings towards the appointment of a regular administrator of the estate of the late Fidela Santos in accordance with law.

In view of respondent Judge's failure to file his Comment on petitioner's "Motion to Sanction or Cite Respondent Judge in Contempt," despite this Court's Resolution dated August 28, 1998 and of his continuous disregard of Our Resolution promulgated on November 10, 1997, We find him guilty of Indirect Contempt. As such, he is hereby reprimanded with a stern warning that a repetition of the same acts will be severely dealt with in the future. 2 Id ., at 33-34.

Petitioner file a motion for reconsideration but the same was denied in the Respondent of the Court of Appeals dated 31 August 1999. 3 Id., at 36-38. No motion for reconsideration was filed by Judge Escano.

Hence, the present petition where petitioner seeks the reversal of the questioned decision and for his reappointment as the regular administrator of the intestate estate of his mother. However, on 16 May 2000, a Manifestation and Motion was filed by private respondents bringing to the attention of the Court the Demise of petitioner on 2 May 2000. 4 Id ., at 190-193. In this regard, private respondents pray that the instant petition should now be dismissed in view of the fact that the petition has been rendered moot by the death of petitioner. In our Resolution, dated 19 June 2000, we ordered petitioner's counsel to comment on the Manifestation and Motion. 5 Id ., at 203. In his Comment filed on 31 August 2000, petitioner's counsel confirmed his client's demise but insists that the case should still be resolved in order to determine whether the Court of Appeals erred in issuing the questioned decision. 6 Id ., at 221-222.

Meanwhile, on 7 June 2000 Judge Escano filed his own Manifestation and Motion wherein he questions his being in indirect contempt by the Court of Appeals. 7 Id., at 195-195. The same pleading was previously filed by Judge Escano before the Court of Appeals but he was advised that the records of the case were already forwarded to this Court due to the filing of the instant petition. In the said Manifestation and Motion, Judge Escano claims that he should not have been dragged into the petition in the first place since he is only a nominal party. Furthermore, he contends that, based on his recollection, he caused the preparation of a letter explanation in compliance with the 28 August 1998 Resolution of the Court of Appeals but for some unknown reason, the said letter could no longer be found. On 25 August 2000, a Supplement to his Manifestation and Motion was filed by Judge Escano wherein he argues further that, despite his failure to file a timely motion for reconsideration of petition for review, he should be allowed to thresh out his case before this Court since when the questioned decision of the Court of Appeals was delivered to his office on 3 March 199, he was not able to receive the same since he was suspended from office from 5 February 1999 to 4 August 1999 due to an administrative case. 8 Id., at 207-208.

We shall first tackle the matter with regard to petitioner's untimely demise and the implications of the same to the instant petition. In is undeniable that the ultimate purpose of petitioner in seeking the reversal of the questioned Decision is his reinstatement as administrator of the intestate estate of Fidela Santos. Thus, it is clear that since petitioner has already passed away, any further proceeding with regard to this petition would simply be an unproductive exercise. Whether we rule for or against petitioner is no longer relevant since petitioner can no longer exercise his functions as an administrator. The proper action that should now be taken is for the trial court to conduct proceedings for the appointment of a new administrator. In this regard, Section 2 of Rule 82 provides:

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.

With regard to the Manifestation and Motion of Judge Escano, we agree with the Court of Appeals in finding the said judge guilty of indirect contempt. Although it is true that Judge Escano was merely a nominal party to the special civil action for certiorari, 9 Calderon vs. Solicitor General, 215 SCRA 876, 880 (1992). he should have still complied with the resolution of the Court of Appeals directing him to file a comment. His refusal to comply with the orders of the Court of Appeals shows his lack of respect towards the appellate court. We quote with approval the Resolution of the Court of Appeals, dated 8 August 2000, with respect to the Manifestation and Motion filed by Judge Escano, to wit:

It appearing that a copy of the said decision was received by respondent Judge on March 3, 1999 as per the corresponding registry return card (Rollo, p. 312, back) the last day for a timely filing of his motion for reconsideration fell on March 18, 1999. The instant Manifestation and Motion, which is patently a motion for reconsideration was filed only on May 24, 2000 or a period on fourteen (14) months following his receipt of a copy of this Court's adverse decision. The reglementary period applies as much to public respondents as well as to private respondents.

WHEREFORE, foregoing considered, the instant motion is hereby DENIED and this Court's decision against respondent Judge holding him guilty of indirect contempt, being already final and executory against him as of March 19, 1999, entry of judgment is hereby ordered issued with respect to the respondent Judge alone, it appearing that the private respondent has a pending petition for review with the Supreme Court from our decision of February 24, 1999. 10 Rollo , p. 213.

Although Judge Escano explains that this failure to file a timely motion for reconsideration or petition for review of the 24 February 1999 Decision of the Court of Appeals was due to his having been suspended in office, we find this justification hard to believe. It is quite improbable for his office staff to be apathetic to his welfare by not bringing to his attention important papers delivered to his office. Moreover, it seems that the excuse posited by the said judge is merely an afterthought since he failed to mention this in the first pleading he filed before this Court and merely raised the same in his Supplemental to his Manifestation and Motion after the Court of Appeals issued the above quoted 8 August 2000 Resolution.

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the instant petition is hereby DISMISSED for being moot and academic. The case is remanded to the court of origin for further proceedings. The Manifestation and Motion of Judge Zosimo Escano is hereby DENIED and the findings of the Court of Appeals in citing the said judge guilty of indirect contempt is AFFIRMED.

The Court further resolves to NOTE:

(a) the supplemental of respondent Judge Zosimo Escano to the manifestation/motion dated June 5, 2000;

(b) the separate comments of counsel for petitioner: (1) on the said Judge's manifestation and motion filed in compliance with the resolution of June 28, 2000; and (2) on private respondent's motion that the case be rendered moot and academic due to the death of petitioner; and

(c) the reply of private respondents to said petitioner's comment on the motion of private respondent.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.)VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE