Jamero v. Melicor
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Petitioner Margarito R. Jamero initiated Special Proceedings No. 1618 for the administration and settlement of his deceased mother's estate. His brother, private respondent Ernesto R. Jamero, opposed petitioner's bid to be appointed regular administrator. The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 4, Tagbilaran City, over petitioner's objections, appointed Atty. Alberto Bautista as special administrator pending the selection of a regular administrator. 2. Procedural History: Petitioner received the RTC's December 4, 1998 order appointing the special administrator on December 11, 1998. He filed a motion for reconsideration on December 28, 1998, which the RTC denied in an order dated February 26, 1999, received by petitioner on March 4, 1999. Petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA) on April 21, 1999. The CA dismissed this petition on June 14, 1999, for failing to state material dates as required by Rule 46, Section 3 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. The CA subsequently denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration on November 24, 1999. 3. The Petition: Petitioner seeks review on certiorari of the CA's resolutions, arguing that the CA prioritized technicality over substantive merits and erred in ruling that the appointment of a special administrator is discretionary, interlocutory, and not subject to certiorari. He also contends the appointment itself was improper. The Supreme Court, in its decision, found merit in petitioner's claim that a new procedural circular (A.M. Circular No. 00-2-03-SC) should be given retroactive effect, meaning his petition to the CA was timely. Consequently, the Court set aside the CA's resolutions and remanded the case to the CA for further proceedings on the substantive issues.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari for having been filed out of time. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the appointment of a special administrator is discretionary to the appointing court and, being an interlocutory order, is not appealable nor subject to certiorari. Whether the appointment of a special administrator is in accordance with law and jurisprudence.
Ruling
The Supreme Court partially granted the petition, setting aside the assailed Resolutions of the Court of Appeals and remanding the case to the CA for further proceedings. The Court amended its previous resolution regarding the fine imposed on Atty. Alberto Bautista.
Ratio Decidendi
On the first issue (timeliness of the petition for certiorari): The Supreme Court found merit in petitioner's claim that A.M. Circular No. 00-2-03-SC, amending Section 4, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, should be given retroactive effect. This circular provides that the sixty-day period for filing a petition for certiorari shall be counted from notice of the denial of a motion for reconsideration. Applying this to the case, petitioner had until May 3, 1999, to file his petition with the CA, and his filing on April 21, 1999, was within the reglementary period. The Court reiterated the principle that procedural laws are generally given retroactive effect to pending actions as they do not create new rights but merely further existing remedies. On the second issue (appointment of special administrator as interlocutory and non-appealable): The Supreme Court agreed that the appointment of a special administrator is indeed an interlocutory order, discretionary on the part of the RTC, and generally non-appealable. However, the Court clarified that such an order may still be subject to a petition for certiorari if it can be shown that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion or acted without or in excess of jurisdiction. This principle was underscored by citing the ruling in Pefianco vs. Moral, which allows certiorari as a remedy to annul interlocutory orders issued with grave abuse of discretion. On the third issue (propriety of the appointment of a special administrator): The Court held that this issue would have to be considered and passed upon by the CA, given that the petition for certiorari was not moot and academic despite the retroactive application of the procedural rule. The CA's determination of whether the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in appointing the special administrator was deemed necessary for a complete resolution of the case.
Main Doctrine
While the appointment of a special administrator is an interlocutory order, discretionary, and generally non-appealable, it may be subject to a petition for certiorari if it is shown that the appointing court committed grave abuse of discretion, or acted with lack of or in excess of jurisdiction. Procedural laws, including amendments to the Rules of Court, may be given retroactive effect to pending actions.