GR 46050; (August, 1938) (Digest)
G.R. No. 46050; August 12, 1938
ADRIANO F. CRUZ, ET AL., petitioners, vs. FERNANDO JUGO, Judge of First Instance of Manila, and FRANCISCO YATCO, respondents.
FACTS
Respondent Francisco Yatco served as attorney-in-fact for Maria Jacoba Cruz from 1928 to 1936, with his annual salary of P1,200 credited in her books and approved by her for the years 19281931. In 1936, Maria Jacoba Cruz was declared incapacitated, and Yatco was appointed her guardian. He filed an inventory of her estate, including a claim for P9,800 in unpaid salaries from 1928 to 1936, which the court approved. After the ward’s death, Yatco filed his final account, which included the payment of this claim. Petitioners, heirs of the ward, objected to this item. The trial court approved the final account, including the salary claim. Petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals, but their appeal was denied for being filed out of time. They then filed this petition for certiorari to annul the trial court’s order approving the final account.
ISSUE
1. Whether a petition for certiorari is proper after the denial of an appeal due to tardiness.
2. Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to approve the guardian’s claim for unpaid salaries in the guardianship proceedings after the ward’s death, or whether such claim should have been filed in the testate proceedings of the deceased ward.
RULING
1. No, certiorari is not proper. The extraordinary remedy of certiorari is not available when an adequate remedy by appeal existed but was lost due to the petitioner’s own negligence or that of their attorney. The denial of the appeal by the Court of Appeals rendered the trial court’s order final and executory.
2. Yes, the trial court had jurisdiction. The claim for unpaid salaries was part of the guardianship accounts and was properly approved by the guardianship court during the ward’s lifetime. Upon the ward’s death, the guardian was required to file his final account in the guardianship proceedings for approval and closure. The claim was not a pending credit to be filed in the testate proceedings, as it had already been approved and paid during the guardianship. The court held that the final account of a guardianship must be filed and approved in the guardianship proceedings even after the ward’s death. The petition was denied and dismissed.
AI Generated by Armztrong.