G.R. No. L-14391; May 30, 1960
GENARO SENEN, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MAXIMA A. DE PICHAY, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

In Special Proceedings No. Q-86, the Court of First Instance of Rizal appointed defendant Maxima A. de Pichay as the guardian over the person and properties of the minors Genaro, Rufina, Perfecto, and Simplicio, all surnamed Senen. These guardianship proceedings were dismissed by the court on March 16, 1955, due to abandonment. On September 30, 1955, Genaro Senen, one of the wards, filed an action in the Court of First Instance of Manila against the former guardian, Maxima A. de Pichay. The complaint sought a full accounting of the amounts she had received for the wards, including P900.45 as arrears in pay of their deceased father and a monthly pension of P10.00 for each ward since June 26, 1950. It alleged that the defendant withheld and appropriated these funds, forcing the children to rely on others for support. The plaintiff prayed for an accounting, indemnification, revocation of the letters of guardianship, his appointment as guardian in her place, and an award of actual damages, moral damages, and attorney’s fees. The defendant moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the claim was released by the dismissal of the guardianship proceedings and that venue was improper. The trial court denied the motion. After trial, it rendered judgment ordering the defendant to pay the plaintiff P2,859 (representing the pension and backpay), P1,000 as moral damages, and P1,000 as attorney’s fees, and appointed the plaintiff as guardian of his minor brothers. The defendant appealed, raising the issue of the trial court’s jurisdiction.

ISSUE

Had the Court of First Instance of Manila (the court below) jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action for accounting against the former guardian?

RULING

Yes, the Court of First Instance of Manila validly acquired jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance of Rizal (Quezon City) over the guardianship proceedings and its incidents existed only as long as the case was pending. Once the guardianship proceeding was terminated by dismissal, that court’s jurisdiction over the matter was exhausted. A petition for accounting, being an incident of the guardianship, should be filed in the court where the guardianship is pending. However, after termination, such a petition can no longer be filed in the same case but must be instituted as a separate action in any court of competent jurisdiction. The general rule favoring the court first acquiring jurisdiction is subject to the exception that when the proceeding in that court is terminated, another court of concurrent jurisdiction may take over. An action for accounting may be brought in a court of law whenever the guardianship terminates without prior settlement in the probate court. Therefore, the lower court had jurisdiction.
On the factual issues, the Supreme Court modified the trial court’s decision. Based on the defendant’s own inventory and accounting, it found:
1. Judicial and administrative expenses of P199.00 were approved and chargeable against the minors’ pensions.
2. Of the P757.94 backpay received, P350.00 (for a loan to the minors’ mother and her burial expenses) was legally chargeable against it, leaving P407.94 due to the plaintiffs.
3. Regarding the P2,450.00 in pension funds received, the defendant was entitled to claim P30.00 per month for supporting the minors. However, as the legally authorized pension was only P10.00 per month per child, she was allowed only P180.00 per child for an 18-month stay, totaling P900.00 for all five minors. Thus, the amount remaining due from her for the pensions was P1,550.00.
4. The defendant was not liable for moral damages, as her acts, while involving an advantage taken of the funds, were not sufficiently malicious given her efforts to enroll the minors in school and keep them in her home despite her own large family and the limited pensions.
5. Attorney’s fees were reduced to 10% of the recovery, amounting to P200.00.
DISPOSITIVE:
The defendant was ordered to pay the plaintiff, for himself and as guardian of his minor brothers, the sum of P1,907.94 (P407.94 + P1,550.00), to pay the plaintiff’s attorney P200.00 as fees, plus costs. The order appointing the plaintiff as guardian of his minor brothers was affirmed.