Case Digest (G.R. No. 47281)
Facts:
- The case involved Alejandro Mallari (appellant) and Manuel Estipona (appellee).
- The case was brought before the court on appeal from the decision of the lower court, the Court of First Instance of Sorsogon.
- The lower court ordered the estate of the deceased Francisco Momblan to pay the appellee, Manuel Estipona, the sum of P700 as payment for services rendered in the estate.
Issue:
- (Unlock)
Ruling:
- The court ruled in favor of the appellant, Alejandro Mallari.
- The court revoked the order of the lower court.
- The court...(Unlock)
Ratio:
- An attorney cannot claim payment for services rendered to a deceased person's estate unless those services were requested and employed by the estate administrator for the benefit of the estate.
- The appellee, Manuel Estipona, represented the heirs of Francisco Momblan, but there was no allegation that he had ever been employed by the estate administrator.
- The fact that the appellee's services benefited the estate did not give him the right to demand payment from the estate.
- Previous decisions, such as Dacanay v. Hernandez and Orozco v. Hernaez, est...continue reading
Case Digest (G.R. No. 47281)
Facts:
The case of Mallari v. Estipona involves a dispute over the right of an attorney to claim payment from a deceased person's estate without being employed by the estate administrator. The case was decided on April 25, 1941, by the Second Division of the Supreme Court of the Philippines, with Justice Horrilleno as the ponente. The respondent in the case is Manuel Estipona, while the defendant is Alejandro Mallari. The case originated from the lower court, specifically the Court of First Instance of Sorsogon.
Issue:
The main issue raised in the case is whether the attorney, Manuel Estipona, has the right to receive the honorarium that was awarded to him by the lower court, which is to be paid by the estate of the deceased Francisco Momblan. The appellant, Alejandro Mallari, argues that Estipona was not employed by the estate administrator and therefore should not be entitled to claim payment from the estate. On the other hand, Estipona claims that his services were beneficial to the estate and its beneficiaries, and therefore he should be compensated.
Ruling:
The court ruled in favor of the estate administrator, Alejandro Mallari. The court held ...