G.R. No. L-10000, December 28, 1957
Intestate Estate of the Deceased Jose B. Suntay. Teofilo Sison, claimant-appellant, vs. Federico C. Suntay, respondent-administrator-appellee.

FACTS

The case involves the claim for additional attorney’s fees by Atty. Teofilo Sison against the estate of Jose B. Suntay. Jose B. Suntay died in 1934, leaving properties in the Philippines and China and heirs from two marriages. An intestate proceeding was instituted. The surviving widow and later Silvino Suntay (a child from the second marriage) filed petitions for the probate of wills allegedly executed by the deceased. The administrator of the estate, Federico C. Suntay (a child from the first marriage), initially opposed these probate petitions through his lawyers, Attys. Roxas, Picazo and Mejia. After the trial court initially granted Silvino Suntay’s alternative petition for probate, Atty. Teofilo Sison was engaged as substitute counsel for the administrator to handle the motion for reconsideration and new trial. Sison successfully argued the motion, leading the court to reconsider and deny the probate petition. He then represented the administrator in the subsequent appeal to the Supreme Court, which affirmed the denial of probate. Sison also rendered other services for the estate. During his engagement, Sison received P67,000 from the administrator on account of his fees. After the Supreme Court decision became final, Sison demanded a total fee of P400,000. The administrator refused, contending the amount already received was sufficient. Sison filed a petition in the intestate proceeding for an additional P333,000. The trial court denied the claim, ruling that the services regarding the will contest were not chargeable to the estate and that the P67,000 already received was sufficient compensation.

ISSUE

Whether Atty. Teofilo Sison is entitled to additional attorney’s fees for his services rendered as counsel for the estate administrator, and if so, what constitutes reasonable compensation.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that Sison is entitled to additional reasonable compensation. The Court held that his services in successfully opposing the probate of the wills were beneficial to the estate and the heirs of the first marriage, as probate would have terminated the intestate proceeding and reduced their share. The Court applied the criteria under the Rules of Court and jurisprudence for determining reasonable attorney’s fees, considering the importance of the subject matter, the extent and nature of the services, the labor and skill involved, the responsibility imposed, the value of the property preserved for the intestate heirs (approximately P2,462,000), the results secured, and the attorney’s professional standing. The Court noted that the total value of the intestate estate was about P3,695,000. Considering all circumstances, including the P67,000 already received, the Court found that an additional award of P75,000 was fair and reasonable, bringing the total compensation to P142,000. The Court further ruled that this additional fee should not be charged against the shares of the heirs who benefited from the probate of the wills (Silvino Lim and Natividad Lim Billian). The appealed order was revoked, and a new one was entered allowing the appellant the additional fees of P75,000 with legal interest from the finality of the decision.