G.R. No. 29414, July 17, 1928
TEODORICO UY TIOCO, petitioner, vs. CARLOS IMPERIAL, Judge of First Instance of Manila, and ALEJANDRO M. PANIS, respondents.

FACTS

Teodorico Uy Tioco, the administrator of the estate of the deceased Basilisa Yangco, filed a petition for prohibition to restrain Judge Carlos Imperial from compelling him to pay P11,250 to Alejandro Panis, the former counsel for the estate, from estate funds. Panis had filed a motion for attorney’s fees of P15,000, which the court granted over the administrator’s objections. The administrator did not appeal, but the guardian ad litem for the minor heirs filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied. The guardian ad litem then appealed this denial. While the appeal was pending, Panis moved for partial payment of three-fourths of the fees, arguing that one minor heir had died and the surviving minor’s interest was only one-fourth. The court ordered the administrator to pay three-fourths of the fees. The administrator refused, leading to this prohibition suit.

ISSUE

Whether the probate court may order the immediate execution of an order allowing attorney’s fees after an appeal from that order has been perfected.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court granted the writ of prohibition. The Court held that once an appeal from the order allowing attorney’s fees has been perfected, the lower court loses jurisdiction to enforce its immediate execution. The appellee’s interests are adequately protected by the appeal bond. The Court further clarified the nature of liability for attorney’s fees in probate proceedings: such fees are allowed to the executor or administrator, not directly to the attorney. The administrator is personally liable for payment but is entitled to reimbursement from the estate if the fees are beneficial and reasonable, subject to settlement in his final accounts. The respondent judge was prohibited from enforcing payment pending resolution of the appeal.