Case Summary (G.R. No. 233152)
Procedural History and Background
Arturo G. Mackay was appointed as the regular administrator of the intestate estate on March 20, 1996. Nearly two years after his appointment, he failed to submit the mandated inventory of the estate's assets and liabilities and neglected to pay the estate taxes. This prompted Antonio G. Mackay to file a motion on March 10, 1998, to remove Arturo as estate administrator. Arturo opposed this motion but failed to appear at hearings despite proper notice. Consequently, Judge Adoracion G. Angeles issued an order on July 15, 1998, relieving Arturo as administrator and appointing Antonio as his successor, conditioned on the filing of a bond.
Orders Issued and Subsequent Appeal
The trial court denied Arturo's motion for reconsideration on August 28, 1998, and he received a copy on September 7, 1998. Arturo filed a notice of appeal on September 29, 1998; however, the trial court had already issued letters of administration to Antonio on September 24, 1998. Arturo then sought relief with the Court of Appeals (CA) by filing a petition for certiorari and prohibition with a preliminary injunction or restraining order to halt implementation of the trial court's order.
Actions of the Court of Appeals
The CA docketed the case as CA-G.R. SP No. 49219. On November 26, 1998, the CA denied Arturo’s application for a temporary restraining order, reasoning that he had no clear legal right to the relief sought. The CA, in a decision dated April 14, 2000, upheld the trial court's orders, finding no grave abuse of discretion in the removal of Arturo for failure to account for the estate or in the immediate appointment and issuance of letters of administration to Antonio. The CA further denied Arturo’s motion for reconsideration on July 26, 2000.
Issues Raised by the Petitioner
Arturo argued that the September 24, 1998 issuance of letters of administration to Antonio was premature because the order appointing Antonio had been appealed. He contended that this issuance violated his right to appeal and constituted grave abuse of discretion. Arturo also accused the CA of error for applying the presumption of regularity and for improperly deciding factual issues—such as Antonio’s qualifications and Arturo’s discharge—that were not raised in his petition for certiorari.
Supreme Court’s Analysis on Discretionary Execution Pending Appeal
The Supreme Court reaffirmed the principle established in De Borja v. Tan (1953) that a trial court does not commit grave abuse of discretion by ordering the immediate execution of an appointment as administrator pending appeal when special reasons exist. The Court referenced Section 2, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, which permits discretionary execution of judgments or final orders pending appeal upon good cause shown after hearing. The immediate appointment of Antonio was justified by the need to avoid leaving the estate without an administrator and to prevent undue delay in settling the estate, which the trial court has a duty to expedite.
Distinction Between Appeal and Certiorari as Mode of Review
On the alleged errors committed by the CA, the Court highlighted the fundamental distinction between appeal and certiorari as modes of review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. Appeals by certiorari are limited strictly to questions of law, not factual or interlocutory matters. The Court emphasized that errors involving factual determinations or issues not raised in the petition cannot be considered under certiorari. It also noted that remedies by appeal and certiorari are mutually exclusive, not successive or alternative.
Final Ruling and Conclusion
The Court found no grave abuse of discretion by the trial court and affirmed the CA’s ruling affirming the remo
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 233152)
Background and Procedural History
- Petitioner Arturo G. Mackay was appointed as the regular administrator of the intestate estate of the deceased Eufrocina G. Mackay on March 20, 1996.
- Nearly 24 months after his appointment, petitioner failed to submit the required inventory of estate assets and liabilities and did not pay estate taxes.
- Private respondent Antonio G. Mackay filed a motion on March 10, 1998 for petitioner's removal as administrator due to his failure to comply with his duties.
- Petitioner filed an opposition to the motion on March 30, 1998 and hearings were scheduled, but petitioner failed to attend any of the hearings despite being notified.
- On July 15, 1998, the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 125, Caloocan City, through Acting Presiding Judge Hon. Adoracion G. Angeles, issued an order removing petitioner as administrator and appointing private respondent as his substitute upon the filing of a P20,000 administrator’s bond.
- Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied on August 28, 1998, a copy of which was received by petitioner on September 7, 1998.
- Although petitioner filed a notice of appeal and record on appeal on September 29, 1998, the trial court had already issued letters of administration in favor of private respondent on September 24, 1998.
- To halt implementation of the removal and appointment order, petitioner filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction/restraining order before the Court of Appeals on October 8, 1998, amending it later on October 12, 1998.
- The Court of Appeals denied the issuance of a temporary restraining order on November 26, 1998, and subsequently dismissed petitioner’s petition on April 14, 2000, affirming the trial court’s orders.
- Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration before the Court of Appeals was denied on July 26, 2000.
- Petitioner then filed the present petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court before the Supreme Court.
Issues Presented
- The principal issue revolves around the propriety and validity of the trial court’s issuance of letters of administration to private respondent on September 24, 1998, while petitioner’s appeal was still pending.
- Petitioner contends the issuance was premature and violated his right to appeal.
- Petitioner also alleges the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the orders despite their being issued in grave abuse of discretion.
- Lastly, petitioner claims the Court of Appeals exceeded its jurisdiction by deciding issues not raised in the petition for certiorari, specifically the qualifications of private respondent as administrator and the propriety of petitioner’s discharge.
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
- The appellate court found no grave