G.R. No. 144230 - Mackay vs. Angeles

Arturo G. Mackay (petitioner) was appointed as regular administrator of the intestate estate of the deceased Eufrocina G. Mackay on March 20, 1996.
Despite nearly twenty-four months after his appointment, petitioner had neither submitted the required inventory of estate assets and liabilities nor paid the estate taxes.

Due to the delay, Antonio G. Mackay (private respondent) filed an urgent motion on March 10, 1998, seeking the removal of petitioner as administrator.
Petitioner opposed the motion on March 30, 1998, and the hearing was duly set. Despite notices, petitioner failed to attend any hearings.
On July 15, 1998, the Acting Presiding Judge of RTC Branch 125, Hon. Adoracion G. Angeles (public respondent), issued an Order relieving petitioner as administrator and appointed private respondent as his substitute, contingent on posting an administrator’s bond of P20,000.00.
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied by the court on August 28, 1998, for utter lack of merit; petitioner received a copy of this Order on September 7, 1998.

On September 24, 1998, the trial court issued letters of administration in favor of private respondent.
Despite this, petitioner filed a notice of appeal on September 29, 1998, along with the record on appeal.
To stop enforcement of the court’s orders, petitioner filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction/ restraining order before the Court of Appeals (CA) on October 8, 1998.
An amended petition was filed on October 12, 1998, and the case was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 49219.

On November 26, 1998, the CA denied petitioner’s application for a temporary restraining order, reasoning that petitioner had no clear legal right to such relief.
The CA found no grave abuse of discretion in the RTC’s order removing petitioner and appointing private respondent, given petitioner’s failure to account for the estate and the immediate issuance of letters of administration.
The CA dismissed the petition on April 14, 2000, affirming the RTC Orders dated July 15, 1998, and August 28, 1998.
The CA also denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration on July 26, 2000, for lack of merit.

Petitioner brought the present petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, assailing:

The alleged premature issuance of letters of administration to private respondent despite the pendency of an appeal.
The CA’s application of the presumption of regularity in the public respondent’s official acts.
The CA’s purported grave abuse of discretion for resolving issues proper to ordinary appeal but not raised in the certiorari petition.

Petitioner argued the orders were issued in violation of his right to appeal and with grave abuse of discretion.

Whether the issuance of letters of administration to private respondent before the perfection and resolution of petitioner’s appeal was proper or premature.
Whether the Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion and committed errors of law in affirming the orders of the RTC removing petitioner and appointing private respondent.
Whether the Court of Appeals exceeded its jurisdiction in resolving issues not raised in the petition for certiorari.