G.R. No. L‑2921
December 6, 1906
—
FACTS
– Clemente del Rosario was appointed executor of the estates of Nicolas del Rosario and Honorata Valdez.
– Ramon del Rosario sued Clemente in his capacity as executor; the plaintiff‑lawyer represented Ramon and obtained a judgment against Clemente.
– Clemente appealed, but before the appeal proceeded he was re‑appointed executor of the same two estates and subsequently abandoned the appeal.
– The plaintiff sought leave to continue the appeal on behalf of Clemente’s widow and minor son (heirs/legatees). The trial court allowed the continuation; the case was transferred, tried, and the appellate court reversed the original judgment.
– The plaintiff then sued Rosendo del Rosario, the new executor, for attorney’s fees: (1) for services rendered in the first‑instance trial, and (2) for services rendered on the appeal.
ISSUE
1. Whether an attorney may recover fees from a successor executor for services performed in the original suit against a former executor.
2. Whether the current executor (Rosendo del Rosario) can be held liable for fees incurred in prosecuting the appeal, which he neither employed nor supported.
RULING
1. First cause of action: Applied the rule in Escueta v. Sy‑Juilliong a lawyer hired by an administrator (or executor) of an estate cannot sue a successor administrator/executor for fees once the original administrator dies or is replaced. The plaintiff’s claim for first‑instance fees is barred.
2. Second cause of action: The defendant, in both personal and representative capacities, did not employ the plaintiff for the appeal and, in fact, acted to prevent it. Liability for appeal fees therefore does not attach to the successor executor.
The appellate court reversed the lower‑court judgment, acquitted Rosendo del Rosario of the complaint, and ordered that the plaintiff may pursue his fee claims against the proper parties (the widow and minor son of the former executor). No costs were awarded to either side in this Court; the costs of the first instance were borne by the defendant. The case was remanded for execution of the judgment.