G.R. No. L-5675, November 26, 1912
JOSE CARLOS CHUNG MUY CO’S ADMINISTRATION, petitioner-appellee, vs. LIM QUIOC, ET AL., respondents-appellants.

FACTS

The case involves an appeal from an order of the Court of First Instance of Manila approving, with modifications, the account of the administrator of an estate. The appellants contested the allowance of P4,396.22 as compensation to the administrator, which included: (1) per diem allowances for services rendered over 36 months; (2) P1,000 for prosecuting a suit to recover money for the estate; (3) P500 for extraordinary services related to the estate’s interest in an oil store; (4) P250 for unusual services in settling two claims of the estate; and (5) P202.22 as commissions on disbursements. The lower court found that the administrator worked 286 days in the first 11 months and 325 days in the next 25 months, findings not disturbed on appeal due to the absence of the testimony transcript. The appellants only objected to the items totaling P1,750 (P1,000 + P500 + P250).

ISSUE

Whether the lower court erred in granting additional compensation to the administrator beyond the per diem allowance and statutory commissions for alleged extraordinary or unusual services.

RULING

Yes, the lower court erred. The Supreme Court modified the order by disallowing the additional amounts of P1,000, P500, and P250.

Under Section 680 of the Code of Civil Procedure, an administrator’s compensation is strictly limited to: (1) a per diem allowance for time actually and necessarily employed; (2) commissions on disbursements; and (3) a greater sum only in special cases where the estate is large, the settlement attended with great difficulty, and a high degree of capacity is required. The Court emphasized that the law scrutinizes executors’ and administrators’ acts to protect estates and aims to fix compensation with certainty to avoid unnecessary litigation.

The administrator’s services in prosecuting a suit, handling the oil store interest, and settling two claimswhile possibly requiring effortdid not meet the stringent criteria for “special cases” warranting extra compensation. The estate was ordinary, involved no complex business operations, and required only the exercise of ordinary business prudence, not a “high degree of capacity.” The administrator’s per diem allowance already covered these services, and no detailed justification was provided to classify them as extraordinary under the statute. The P202.22 in commissions was properly allowed. Thus, the appealed order was affirmed only as to the per diem and commission items.