G.R. No. L-14334; April 29, 1960
Intestate estate of the deceased Patricia Malonzo de Malapitan. CARLOS GOZON, administrator-appellee, vs. ISRAEL M. MALAPITAN, ET AL., oppositors-appellants.

FACTS

Patricia Malonzo de Malapitan died, leaving nine children. Four of them (Israel, Hospito, Hortencia, and Estela, all surnamed Malapitan) are the oppositors-appellants. The other five heirs favored the appointment of Carlos Gozon as administrator of the estate in Special Proceedings No. 2145 before the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Quezon City Branch. Gozon was appointed administrator over the objection of the four oppositors. The administrator filed an inventory of estate properties. The oppositors sought to exclude certain properties from the inventory, claiming ownership. The trial court commissioned a deputy clerk to receive evidence on these claims, utilizing court stenographers. The administrator employed attorneys Ereñeta and Munda as counsel.
On January 27, 1956, Atty. Munda, counsel for the administrator, filed a “Petition to Set Attorney’s Fee and to Withdraw Some Amount to Pay Transcript of Record” without serving a copy on the oppositors. On January 28, 1956, the court authorized the administrator to withdraw P200.00 from estate funds to pay the stenographers for the transcript of notes from the hearings on the motion to exclude properties. The order also required counsel to submit an itemized list of services rendered.
On February 3, 1956, the attorneys submitted their list of services. On the same date, the oppositors filed an “Urgent Motion for Reconsideration” of the January 28 order, seeking to revoke the authority to withdraw the P200.00. On February 8, 1956, the administrator filed a “Motion to Withdraw Money to Pay Transcript of Record and Attorney’s Fees,” which was served on the oppositors. The oppositors objected, arguing the fixing of attorney’s fees was premature and unmeritorious. On February 24, 1956, the lower court issued the appealed order, allowing the administrator to withdraw P300.00 as an advance payment for his attorneys’ fees and noting the P200.00 for stenographers had already been delivered.
The list of legal services included appearances related to the appointment of the administrator, examinations regarding concealed property, and appearances before the Provincial Fiscal of Pasig, Rizal, and the City Fiscal of Manila, as well as in connection with Civil Case No. 3640 of the Court of First Instance of Pasig. According to the oppositors’ brief, Civil Case No. 3640 was a suit by administrator Gozon against oppositor Israel Malapitan over possession of a store claimed by the estate but asserted by Israel as his own. Other appearances related to a robbery complaint filed by Israel against Gozon concerning a seized vehicle and a falsification complaint by another heir against Israel regarding the store’s registration.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in authorizing, at that stage of the proceedings, the withdrawal of estate funds (a) to pay an advance on attorney’s fees to the administrator’s counsel and (b) to pay for the stenographic transcript.

RULING

The Supreme Court set aside the appealed order. It ruled that authorizing the payment for the attorneys’ services from estate funds was premature. The Court noted that many of the listed services (appearances in criminal complaints before the fiscals and in the civil case over the store) appeared to have been rendered not for the benefit of the estate administration but rather in the legal disputes between the factions of heirs. To determine the value of these services and for whose interest they were rendered, a hearing with both parties present was necessary. Therefore, at that stage, authorizing payment from estate funds was improper.
Regarding the P200.00 for the stenographic transcript, the Court ruled that its payment should be held in abeyance, pending a determination that it was a necessary expense of the administration. If the amount had already been paid, the stenographers should return it, and upon their failure, the administrator should refund the sum to the estate from his personal funds. Costs were imposed on the appellee.