G.R. No. L-5767 October 30, 1954
The Testament of the Late PLACIDA MINA; CRISANTO UMIPIG, ET ALS, petitioners. ATTY. JESUS Q. QUINTILLAN, claimant-appellee, vs. LAZARO DEGALA, GERMANA ESCOBAR, GREGORIO GUERZON, TEODORO, FELIE, CRISTINA, GUERZON, BOLONIA TAMAYO, LEONA LEONES, SIMONA MENDOZA, ISABEL DIRECTO, PLACIDA DIRECTO, ANDRES DIRECTO, PETRA DIRECTO, PAULA DIRECTO, and CLARO QUEBRAL, oppositors-appellants.

FACTS

After the death of Placida Mina in July 1939, three different instruments were presented as her will. The first two (Civil Case Nos. 3685 and 3686) were filed by Dr. Eufemio Domingo and Joaquin Escobar, respectively. The third (Civil Case No. 3689) was filed by four of the six trustees named in a 1927 will. Atty. Jesus Quintillan was engaged by these four trustees under a contract (Annex A-1) promising him 30% of the entire estate if he succeeded in opposing the probate of the first two wills and obtaining the probate of the 1927 will. Atty. Quintillan performed successfully: the first two wills were denied probate, and the 1927 will was probated and its probate affirmed on appeal. He also defended the will’s validity in another case. He then filed a claim for P150,000 (30% of an estate he valued over P500,000). The heirs and interested parties later entered a stipulation recognizing Quintillan’s entitlement to fees, leaving the reasonable amount to the court’s discretion, to be charged as an administration expense. The trial court awarded him P50,000. The heirs appealed, contending the court lacked jurisdiction because the claim was filed after the claims period and that reasonable compensation was only around P7,000.

ISSUE

1. Whether the trial court lacked jurisdiction to entertain Atty. Quintillan’s claim for attorney’s fees because it was filed after the period for filing money claims against the estate.
2. Whether the award of P50,000 as attorney’s fees was reasonable.

RULING

1. The trial court had jurisdiction. Section 5 of Rule 87, requiring claims against the decedent to be filed within a limited time, refers to claims arising from contracts with the decedent. Atty. Quintillan’s claim arose from a contract with the trustees, not with the decedent. Furthermore, the court has discretion to allow a claim even after the period. Most decisively, all interested parties stipulated after the period’s expiration to submit the claim to the court’s determination, thereby waiving any objection to its timeliness.
2. The award of P50,000 was reasonable and not excessive. The determination of attorney’s fees involves factual considerations best left to the trial court. The court considered the factors for determining compensation: the amount and character of services rendered (successful opposition to two wills, probate of the authentic will, and defense of its validity); the labor, time, and trouble involved; the importance of the litigation; the responsibility; the value of the property involved; the skill required; and the results secured. The contingent fee contract for 30% of the estate, though not submitted for approval, was a proper element to consider. No material circumstance was shown to prove the award was excessive. The order was affirmed.