G.R. No. L-47281; April 25, 1941
Testamentaria del finado Francisco Momblan. Alejandro Mallari, opositor y apelante, vs. Manuel Estipona, recurrente y apelado.

FACTS

This case involves an appeal by Alejandro Mallari, the administrator of the intestate estate of the deceased Francisco Momblan, against an order from the Court of First Instance of Sorsogon. The order directed the estate to pay the amount of P700 to lawyer Manuel Estipona as fees for services rendered by him in the intestate proceedings. From the pleading filed by Estipona in the lower court, where he sought P2,000 as fees, it is clearly inferred that Estipona was representing the heirs of Francisco Momblan—namely, Jose Momblan, Julia Momblan, Laura Momblan, and the legatee Josefa Gabi. There is no allegation that he was ever employed by the administrator of the estate. The claim that his services benefited the intestate estate is not a valid reason to demand payment from the estate.

ISSUE

Does lawyer Manuel Estipona have the right to collect the fees awarded to him by the lower court from the intestate estate administered by Alejandro Mallari?

RULING

No. For a lawyer to collect fees chargeable against the estate of a deceased person, it is necessary that the lawyer was employed as such by the administrator, which is not the case here. From the allegations of Estipona and the lower court’s order awarding him P700, it is deduced that his services were neither requested nor employed by the administrator of Francisco Momblan’s estate. In several decisions of this Court, including Dacanay v. Hernandez (53 Phil. 879), it has been declared that for a lawyer to claim payment for services from the administration of a deceased’s estate, those services must have been requested by the administrator for the benefit and protection of the intestate or testate estate. The principle established in Orozco v. Hernaez (1 Phil. 80) is applicable: one cannot impose obligations on another without their knowledge or consent, even if the services ultimately benefited them. The fact that Estipona’s services, rendered in his capacity as lawyer for the heirs, benefited the intestate estate does not confer any right to compel the estate to pay his fees. He must collect them from those who employed his services. The doctrine enunciated in De la Viña v. Geopano (56 Phil. 987) is illustrative: a lawyer hired by another lawyer (who represented the estate administrator) to assist in the work could not charge his fees to the estate, as his services were not contracted by the administrator but by the estate’s lawyer. Therefore, the appealed order is revoked, with costs against the appellee.