Title
Bermudo vs. Tayag-Roxas
Case
G.R. No. 172879
Decision Date
Feb 2, 2011
Atty. Bermudo sought fees as estate administrator and counsel; SC upheld CA's reduction of fees to P4.23M, affirming certiorari as proper remedy.
Font Size:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 172879)

Facts:

Background of the Case:

  • On October 19, 1979, Atty. Ricardo Bermudo filed a petition for his appointment as administrator of the estate of Artemio Hilario and for the probate of Hilario's will before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Angeles City.
  • The testator, Artemio Hilario, named Fermina Tayag-Roxas as his sole heir. However, several individuals claiming to be Hilario's relatives opposed the petition.

RTC and CA Decisions:

  • On October 28, 1987, the RTC allowed the will and recognized Roxas as Hilario's sole heir. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed this decision, and the Supreme Court sustained it on December 7, 1992.

Motion for Attorney's Fees:

  • After the decision became final, Atty. Bermudo, who also served as Roxas' counsel in the inheritance case, filed a motion to fix his legal fees and to constitute a charging lien against the estate for his services.
  • On August 16, 1995, the RTC granted Atty. Bermudo fees equivalent to 20% of the estate and constituted this as a lien on the estate's property.

CA Modification:

  • Roxas appealed the RTC order to the CA. On July 27, 2000, the CA modified the RTC's decision, limiting Atty. Bermudo's compensation as administrator to what Section 7, Rule 85 of the Rules of Court provides and fixing his attorney's fees at 20% of the value of the estate's land.

RTC Execution Order:

  • Atty. Bermudo filed a motion for execution and appraisal of the estate. On October 1, 2004, the RTC ordered Roxas to pay Atty. Bermudo P12,644,300.00 as attorney's fees with 6% interest per annum.

CA Reduction of Fees:

  • Roxas challenged the RTC order before the CA. On December 19, 2005, the CA reduced the attorney's fees to P4,234,770.00 based on a different valuation of the estate's land.

Supreme Court Petitions:

  • Atty. Bermudo filed a petition for review (G.R. No. 172879) challenging the CA's reduction of fees. Roxas also filed a petition for certiorari (G.R. No. 173364) after her motion for partial reconsideration was denied.

Issue:

  1. Whether the CA erred in not dismissing Roxas' special civil action of certiorari, as her remedy should have been an appeal from the settlement of Atty. Bermudo's account as administrator.
  2. Whether the CA erred in holding that Atty. Bermudo, as administrator, is entitled to collect attorney's fees.
  3. Whether the CA erred in reducing Atty. Bermudo's attorney's fees from P12,644,300.00 to P4,234,770.00.

Ruling:

  1. On the Propriety of Certiorari:

    • The Supreme Court held that Roxas' remedy of certiorari was proper. The RTC's order fixing the value of the estate's land for the purpose of computing attorney's fees was not appealable, as it was merely an implementation of a final judgment. Certiorari was the appropriate remedy to contest the RTC's exercise of discretion.
  2. On Atty. Bermudo's Entitlement to Attorney's Fees:

    • The Court ruled that Atty. Bermudo was entitled to attorney's fees. While he served as the estate's administrator, he also acted as Roxas' counsel in the suit contesting her right as sole heir. This legal representation was separate from his duties as administrator, and he successfully defended Roxas' inheritance rights. His entitlement to attorney's fees had already been settled with finality in a prior CA decision.
  3. On the Reduction of Attorney's Fees:

    • The Court upheld the CA's reduction of Atty. Bermudo's attorney's fees. The RTC's valuation of the estate's land, based on an amicus curiae's advice, was unwarranted. The CA correctly relied on the Angeles City Assessor's valuation, which was deemed more reliable and official. Thus, the reduction to P4,234,770.00 was justified.

Ratio:

  1. Certiorari as the Proper Remedy:

    • An order of execution is not appealable. When a court implements a final judgment, the proper remedy to challenge the exercise of discretion is a special civil action of certiorari, not an ordinary appeal.
  2. Entitlement to Attorney's Fees:

    • A lawyer who performs legal services beyond the scope of their duties as an administrator is entitled to attorney's fees. Atty. Bermudo's representation of Roxas in the inheritance case was distinct from his role as administrator, and his success in the case justified the award of fees.
  3. Reliability of Official Valuations:

    • In determining the value of property for the computation of attorney's fees, official valuations by city assessors are entitled to great weight and reliability. Courts should defer to such valuations unless there is compelling reason to deviate.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court affirmed the CA's decision, upholding the reduction of Atty. Bermudo's attorney's fees to P4,234,770.00 based on the Angeles City Assessor's valuation. The Court also confirmed that Roxas' remedy of certiorari was proper and that Atty. Bermudo was entitled to attorney's fees for his legal services.


Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.