G.R. No. L-10699 - Brown vs. Yambao

Margarito R. Jamero, the petitioner, initiated Special Proceedings No. 1618 for the administration and settlement of the estate of his deceased mother, Consuelo Jamero, before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 4, Tagbilaran City.
Private respondent Ernesto R. Jamero, a brother of the petitioner, opposed Margarito’s petition for his appointment as regular administrator of the estate.

On December 4, 1998, acting on the motion of private respondent Ernesto and over the petitioner’s objections, the RTC issued an Order appointing Atty. Alberto Bautista as the special administrator pending the eventual appointment of a regular administrator.
The petitioner received the Order on December 11, 1998 and subsequently filed a motion for reconsideration on December 28, 1998, arguing that its timely filing was impeded by the post office closure the previous day.

The RTC denied the petitioner’s motion for reconsideration in its Order dated February 26, 1999, which the petitioner received on March 4, 1999.
On April 21, 1999, the petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA) under docket CA-G.R. SP No. 53020, seeking to set aside the RTC’s and CA’s previous orders.
The CA, in its Resolution dated June 14, 1999, dismissed the petition for certiorari on the ground that the petition was filed out of time based on the strict application of Section 3, Rule 46 and Section 4, Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended.
The petitioner later filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the CA’s dismissal, which the CA denied on November 24, 1999, affirming its stance that the special administrator’s appointment was an interlocutory and discretionary order not subject to appeal.

Private respondent Ernesto Jamero filed a Comment emphasizing that absent clear, convincing, and satisfactory proof of grave error, the CA’s judgment should stand as final.
The petitioner countered that A.M. Circular No. 00-2-03-SC, which amended Section 4, Rule 65 effective September 1, 2000, should be retroactively applied, thereby rendering the timeliness issue moot.
Additional developments included the CA’s subsequent order, directing the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) to arrest and detain Atty. Bautista for failing to pay a fine of ₱4,000.00 and failing to submit his memorandum, notwithstanding his comment of having no personal interest in the matter.

Whether or not the CA erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari on the basis that it was filed out of time, particularly in light of A.M. Circular No. 00-2-03-SC which amended the procedural requirements retroactively.

Whether the CA was correct in ruling that the appointment of a special administrator is solely within the discretion of the trial court and, being an interlocutory order, is not appealable—or subject to certiorari—unless grave abuse of discretion is shown.

Whether the appointment of a special administrator, especially under the circumstances where the deceased died intestate and left no debts, is in accordance with law and established jurisprudence.
Whether the proper order of preference in appointing the regular administrator was deviated from by appointing a third party (Atty. Bautista) instead of designating the petitioner who possessed beneficial interests in the estate.