G.R. No. 172879 and G.R. No. 173364, February 2, 2011
Case Parties/Title:

G.R. No. 172879 : ATTY. RICARDO B. BERMUDO, Petitioner, vs. FERMINA TAYAG-ROXAS, Respondent.
G.R. No. 173364: FERMINA TAYAG-ROXAS, Petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and ATTY. RICARDO BERMUDO, Respondents.

FACTS

On October 19, 1979, Atty. Ricardo Bermudo filed a petition for his appointment as administrator and for the probate of the will of Artemio Hilario, who instituted Fermina Tayag-Roxas as his sole heir. Oppositions were filed by persons claiming to be Hilario’s relatives. On October 28, 1987, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Angeles City allowed the will and recognized Roxas as the sole heir, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA) and ultimately sustained by the Supreme Court on December 7, 1992. Atty. Bermudo served both as administrator of the estate and as counsel for Roxas in the inheritance contest. After the decision became final, Atty. Bermudo filed a motion to fix his legal fees and to constitute a charging lien against the estate. On August 16, 1995, the RTC granted him fees equivalent to 20% of the estate. Roxas appealed to the CA (CA-G.R. CV 53143), which on July 27, 2000, modified the order, limiting his compensation as administrator under the Rules of Court and fixing his attorney’s fees at 20% of the value of the estate’s land. Atty. Bermudo then filed a motion for execution and appraisal. On October 1, 2004, the RTC ordered Roxas to pay Atty. Bermudo ₱12,644,300.00 as attorney’s fees with 6% interest. Roxas challenged this via a petition for certiorari before the CA, which on December 19, 2005, reduced the amount to ₱4,234,770.00 based on a different valuation. Both parties filed motions for reconsideration; upon denial, Atty. Bermudo filed G.R. No. 172879 and Roxas filed G.R. No. 173364 before the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

1. Whether the CA erred in not dismissing Roxas’ special civil action of certiorari, as her remedy should have been an appeal from the settlement of the administrator’s account.
2. Whether the CA erred in holding that Atty. Bermudo, as administrator, is entitled to collect attorney’s fees.
3. Whether the CA erred in reducing Atty. Bermudo’s attorney’s fees from ₱12,644,300.00 to ₱4,234,770.00.

RULING

1. On the propriety of certiorari: The Supreme Court held that the CA correctly entertained Roxas’ petition for certiorari. The RTC order fixing the value of the estate’s land for computing the 20% attorney’s fees was not an order settling the account of an administrator under Section 1(d), Rule 109 of the Rules of Court, but an implementation of the final award of attorney’s fees. Since an order of execution is not appealable under Rule 41, Section 1(f), the proper remedy to contest the RTC’s exercise of discretion in valuation was a special civil action of certiorari.
2. On entitlement to attorney’s fees: The Court ruled that Atty. Bermudo is entitled to attorney’s fees. He served not only as administrator but also as counsel for Roxas in the suit contesting her right as sole heir, a role distinct from his administrative duties. His legal services, which successfully defended her inheritance up to the Supreme Court, warranted separate compensation. Moreover, his right to attorney’s fees had been settled with finality in CA-G.R. CV 53143, precluding relitigation.
3. On the reduction of attorney’s fees: The Court sustained the CA’s reduction of the fees. The RTC relied on an amicus curiae for valuation, but the CA properly used the market values established by the Angeles City Assessor, whose official opinions deserve great weight and reliability. The Court found no compelling reason to deviate from the CA’s computation based on the assessor’s schedule, affirming the reduced amount of ₱4,234,770.00.
DISPOSITIVE:
The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP 87411 dated December 19, 2005.