Punongbayan v. Punongbayan
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Escolastica Punongbayan-Paguio died intestate in 1969, leaving considerable properties. Her heirs executed a compromise agreement in 1974, distributing the estate and authorizing the administrator to sell certain parcels to pay liabilities. The intestate court approved this agreement in 1976. The proceedings became dormant until 1993 when some heirs moved for immediate distribution and an accounting from co-administrator Danilo G. Punongbayan (Danilo). The intestate court ordered Danilo to distribute the estate, deposit sale proceeds, and render an accounting within 60 days. Procedural History: Danilo assailed the order via certiorari, which was dismissed by the Court of Appeals (CA) and affirmed by the Supreme Court. A writ of execution was issued, but Danilo evaded service. A warrant of arrest was issued, which Danilo sought to recall, but was denied. Danilo filed another certiorari with the CA, which was dismissed, condemning his "clear and contumacious" refusal to obey the writ. Meanwhile, Sotero A. Punongbayan (Sotero) was appointed co-administrator due to Danilo's failure to comply. Danilo then filed a motion for Sotero to render an accounting, alleging Sotero appropriated estate properties and made illegal sales and leases. The intestate court denied this motion. Danilo again filed a special civil action for certiorari and mandamus with the CA, assailing the denial. The Petition: The CA granted Danilo's petition, nullified the RTC's denial orders, and directed Sotero to render an accounting and deposit sale proceeds, finding grave abuse of discretion. Sotero filed this petition for review.
Issue(s)
Whether the intestate court’s Order dated September 15, 2000, denying respondent’s motion for petitioner to render an accounting, was a final or interlocutory order. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in granting the writ of certiorari.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED. The assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Order dated September 15, 2000, of the Regional Trial Court of Cagayan de Oro City, Branch 19, in Special Proceedings No. 1053 is REINSTATED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the first issue: The Court held that the intestate court’s Order dated September 15, 2000, which denied respondent Danilo G. Punongbayan’s motion for petitioner Sotero A. Punongbayan to render an accounting, was an interlocutory order. An order is final if it puts an end to the particular matter, leaving nothing to be done except execution. Conversely, an order is interlocutory if it is provisional and leaves substantial proceedings to be had. The denial of the motion did not settle petitioner's accountability as co-administrator and did not preclude future accountings. Furthermore, proceedings under Section 7, Rule 87 of the Rules of Court, like the motion for accounting, are in the nature of fact-finding inquiries and do not definitively settle issues of ownership, especially when third persons are involved, requiring separate actions. Therefore, the order was not appealable but could be challenged via a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. On the second issue: The Court ruled that the CA erred in granting the writ of certiorari. A writ of certiorari under Rule 65 is available only upon a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion or an act without or in excess of jurisdiction. Such abuse must be patent and gross, amounting to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law. The intestate court correctly denied Danilo's motion for accounting, as it was deemed a ploy to delay his own compliance with the earlier order directing him to render an accounting and turn over proceeds. The grounds raised by Danilo in his motion had already been passed upon and rejected by the CA in a previous case, which held that questions of title to real property cannot be determined in testate or intestate proceedings and that annulment cases for alleged illegal sales were pending before another court. Danilo's "clear and contumacious" refusal to obey court processes was also previously condemned by the CA. Therefore, Danilo was not entitled to the writ of certiorari, especially considering his bad faith in seeking the remedy.
Main Doctrine
An order denying a motion for an administrator to render an accounting is an interlocutory order, not subject to appeal, but may be challenged via a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 if there is grave abuse of discretion.