Macky v. Angeles
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns the administration of the intestate estate of the deceased Eufrocina G. Mackay. Petitioner Arturo G. Mackay was appointed as the regular administrator of the estate. However, he failed to submit the required inventory of estate assets and liabilities and neglected to pay the estate taxes for nearly twenty-four months following his appointment. This inaction prompted private respondent Antonio G. Mackay, a party with interest in the estate, to file a motion seeking the removal of Arturo G. Mackay as administrator. Procedural History: Following the motion for removal, petitioner failed to attend scheduled hearings despite proper notice. Consequently, the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 125, Caloocan City, issued an order on July 15, 1998, relieving petitioner as administrator and appointing private respondent Antonio G. Mackay as his substitute, conditioned upon the filing of an administrator's bond. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied by the RTC on August 28, 1998. Petitioner then filed a notice of appeal and record on appeal on September 29, 1998. However, prior to this, on September 24, 1998, the RTC had already issued letters of administration to the private respondent. To challenge these orders, petitioner filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction and/or restraining order with the Court of Appeals (CA), which was later amended. The CA denied the application for a temporary restraining order and subsequently dismissed the petition, affirming the RTC's orders. The CA also denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration. The Petition: Petitioner seeks review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the CA's decision and resolution. He contends that the CA erred in not holding that the letters of administration issued to the private respondent were premature, arguing that the RTC's order appointing the private respondent was appealed and thus could not be immediately executed. Petitioner also argues that the CA erred in applying the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty and in resolving issues not raised in the petition for certiorari. Essentially, the core issue is the propriety of the RTC's order for the immediate issuance of letters of administration to the private respondent, despite the pending appeal, and whether the CA gravely abused its discretion in affirming these orders.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court gravely abused its discretion in issuing letters of administration to the substitute administrator pending appeal from the removal order. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the orders and resolving issues beyond the certiorari petition's scope.
Ruling
The instant petition for review on certiorari is DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals dated April 14, 2000, in CA-G.R. SP No. 49219, which denied petitioner Arturo G. Mackay's petition for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction and/or restraining order and its Resolution dated July 26, 2000 denying reconsideration of said decision, are hereby AFFIRMED.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The trial court did not commit grave abuse of discretion in ordering immediate execution of the appointment order under Section 2, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, which expressly authorizes discretionary execution of judgments or final orders pending appeal upon motion with notice, good reasons stated in a special order after due hearing. In De Borja v. Tan (93 Phil. 167, 172 (1953)), the Supreme Court held that immediate assumption by a newly appointed administrator before appeal perfection is proper where sufficient reasons justify execution pending appeal, such as here where petitioner's 24-month neglect left the estate unadministered, taxes unpaid, and settlement stalled, fulfilling the RTC's duty under Rules 73-90 to expedite proceedings. The CA correctly affirmed based on preventing estate vacuum and undue delay, as trial courts retain jurisdiction to issue such orders while possessing records. Petitioner's failure to attend hearings despite notice waived opposition, supporting removal for cause under Rule 82, Sec. 2. No prematurity exists, as discretionary execution overrides automatic stay in ordinary appeals, tailored for special proceedings' exigencies. Thus, presumption of regularity applies absent clear jurisdictional defect. On Issue 2: Certiorari under Rule 65, as an original action, is limited to grave abuse of discretion, excess, or lack of jurisdiction, not factual merits like administrator qualifications or discharge propriety, which are for ordinary appeal via notice and record on appeal under Rule 41. Rule 45 petition for review on certiorari reviews only errors of law, mutually exclusive from Rule 65 (Fajardo v. Bautista, G.R. Nos. 102193-97, May 10, 1994; Reas v. Bonife, G.R. Nos. 54348-49, Oct. 17, 1990). Petitioner's Rule 65 petition inherently raised grave abuse in execution, implicitly encompassing removal context, so CA's discussion was contextual, not excess. Allegations of prematurity or regularity presumption are jurisdictional questions properly addressed. No grave abuse by CA, as affirmance aligned with precedents mandating expedition in probate.
Main Doctrine
In special proceedings for intestate estates, a trial court does not commit grave abuse of discretion by removing an administrator for failure to file required inventory and pay taxes after nearly 24 months, and appointing a substitute upon filing of bond. It may order immediate issuance of letters of administration pending appeal under Section 2, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, where good reasons exist such as preventing the estate from being left without an administrator and addressing undue delays in settlement. This discretionary execution requires a special order after due hearing, justified here by the duty to expedite estate proceedings. The Court of Appeals commits no reversible error in affirming such orders absent grave abuse, as certiorari under Rule 65 is confined to jurisdictional excesses, not merits or qualifications reviewable via ordinary appeal. Certiorari under Rule 45 is mutually exclusive from Rule 65 original actions, limiting review to pure questions of law.