GR 156842; (December, 2004) (Digest)
G.R. No. 156842 December 10, 2004
SOTERO A. PUNONGBAYAN, petitioner, vs. DANILO G. PUNONGBAYAN, respondent.
FACTS
This case involves the protracted settlement of the intestate estate of Escolastica Punongbayan-Paguio. The heirs executed a Compromise Agreement in 1974, approved by the court in 1976, for the distribution of estate properties. Respondent Danilo, a co-administrator, failed for years to comply with court orders to distribute the estate, deposit sale proceeds, and render an accounting. After repeated defiance, the court issued a writ of execution against him and later appointed petitioner Sotero as co-administrator. Subsequently, Danilo filed a “Motion to Order Sotero Punongbayan to Render an Accounting,” alleging that Sotero had appropriated, sold, and leased estate properties, thereby impeding Danilo’s own ability to account. The intestate court denied this motion. Danilo then filed a special civil action for certiorari and mandamus with the Court of Appeals.
ISSUE
The primary issue is whether the Court of Appeals correctly granted Danilo’s petition, nullifying the intestate court’s orders and compelling Sotero to render an accounting.
RULING
The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the intestate court’s orders. The Court held that the assailed orders of the intestate court were interlocutory, not final, as they did not dispose of the case on the merits but merely denied Danilo’s motion seeking a preliminary order against Sotero. An interlocutory order is not appealable; the proper remedy against it is not certiorari unless there is a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion. The intestate court did not commit such abuse. Its denial was proper because Danilo’s motion was essentially a dilatory tactic. Danilo’s long-standing and contumacious refusal to obey lawful orders to account and distribute the estate was already established in final and executory judgments. His new claim that Sotero’s actions prevented his compliance was a belated and unsubstantiated excuse to further delay the proceedings. The duty to account, imposed by a final order, was personal to Danilo as administrator and could not be conditionally shifted to Sotero based on mere allegations. The proper procedure for Danilo’s allegations against Sotero was a separate civil action for reconveyance or an independent proceeding under Section 6, Rule 87 of the Rules of Court, not a motion to delay his own court-mandated duties.