Iones v. Henson Cruz

Atty. Briones v.
Lilia Henson-Cruz
GR 159130
Facts:
- Respondent Henson filed a petition for the allowance of the will of her late mother w/ RTC Manila.
- Lilia Henson-Cruz, one of the deceased’s daughters opposed. She alleged that Ruby understated the value
of their late mother’s estate and acted with bad faith. Lilia prayed that her mother’s holographic will be
disallowed and that she be appointed as the Administrator.
- She also prayed that Prudential Bank be appointed as Interim Special Administrator..
- The trial court granted the motion but designated Jose Ferro (VP of Trust Banking Group of the PNB)
as Special Administrator. But Ferror declined the appointment.
- The court then designated petitioner Atty Briones as Special Adminstrator.
- Respondents filed w/ CA a Petitioner for Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus assailing the March 12
Order (granting the request for audit).
- Prior to the filing of the petition for certiorari, the heirs of Luz Henzon filed a Notice of Appeal w/ RTC
assailing the Order dated April 3, 2003 as it directed the payment of Atty. Briones’ commission.
- The trial court denied the appeal and disapproved the record on appeal on the ground of forum shopping.
MR was also denied.
- On July 26, 2002, the respondents filed a Petition for Mandamus claiming that the trial court unlawfully
refused to comply with its ministerial duty to approve their appeal. They refuted the trial court’s finding of
forum shopping. The appeal involved the payment of the special administrator’s commission while the
petition for certiorari assailed the appointment of an accounting firm to conduct an external audit.
- On the other hand, petitioner insisted that respondents committed forum shopping when they assailed the
Order of April 3, 2002 twice through a civl action for certiorari and by ordinary appeal.
- The CA granted respondent’s petition for Mandamus.
- The CA held that the trial court had neither the power nor authority to deny the appeal on the ground of
forum shopping.
- Atty. Briones filed Mr but was denied. Thereupon, he filed the present petition for Review on Certiorari
on the ground that the CA refused to resolve the issue of forum shopping.
- In the interim, the CA granted the Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus on the appointment
of the auditing firm.
- PARTIES POSITIONS
- Petitioner faults the appellate court for refusing to resolve the forum shopping issue.
- Respondent claim that the “mere failure to specify in the decision the contentions of the appellant and the
reason for refusing to believe them is not sufficient to hold the same contrary to the provisions of the law
and the Constitution.
Issue: Did the CA err in not dismissing the respondents petition for mandamus on the ground of forum
shopping?
Held: No. CA did not err. No forum shopping.
An examination of the RTC Order of April 3, 2002 shows that it resolved 3 matters: 1) the
designation of the accounting firm to conduct an audit of the administration of Atty Briones, 2) the payment
of the petitioner’s commission as the Administrator and 3) directive to the petitioner to deliver the residue of
the estate of the heirs. Of these, only the first two are relevant to the present petition.
The first part of the order (auditors appointment) was the subject of the petition for certiorari,
prohibition and mandamus that the respondents filed before the CA (CA GR SP No. 70349). Whether this
part is interlocutory or one that fully settles the case can be answered by the dcotrine in Mirada v. CA “Does
it leave something to be done in the trial court with respect to the merits of the case? If it does, it is
interlocutory; if it does not it is final”.
To audit is “to examine and verify”. Black Law Dictionary defines it “a systematic inspection of
accounting records involving analyses, tests and confirmations; a formal or official examination and
authentication of accounts with witnesses”.
Given that the subject matter of the audit is Atty. Briones’ Final Report in the administration of the
estate of the decedent, its preparatory character is obvious. In the context of what the court’s order
accomplishes, the court’s designation of an auditor does not have the effect of ruling on the pending estate
proceeding on its merits or on the merits of any independently determinable aspect of the estate proceeding;
it is only for purposes of confirming the accuracy of the Administrator’s final report. Thus, the April 3, 2002
Order of the RTC is interlocutory in so far as it designated an accounting firm to audit the petitioner’s special
administration of the estate.
The second part is limited to the Special Administrator’s commission. Under the terms of the Order,
it is apparent that this pronouncement on an independently determinable issue— the special administrator’s
commission— is the court’s definite and final word on the matter, subject only to whatever a higher body
may decide if an appeal is made.
From an estate proceeding perspective, the Special Administrator’s commission is no less a claim
against the estate than a claim that third parties may take. Section 8, Rule 86 recognizes this when it provides
for “Claim of Executor or Administrator Against an Estate. Under Sec 13 of the same Rule, the action of the
court on a claim against the estate is “appealable as in ordinary cases”. Hence, the ruling on the extent of the
Special Administrator’s commission- effectively, a claim by the special administrator against the estate- is
the lower court’s last word on the matter and one that is appealable.
The lower court’s determination of the special administrator’s commission is clearly appealable
while the auditor’s appointment is not. While the petitioner’s position may be legally correct, it is not true in
the present case. The petitioner is the special administrator in a settlement of estate. The rationale behind
allowing more than one appeal in the same case is to enable the rest of the case to proceed in the event that a
separate and distinct issue is resolved by the court and held to be final. In this multi-appeal mode, the probate
court loses jurisdiction only over the subject matter of the appeal but retains jurisdiction over the special
proceeding from which the appeal was taken.
Forum shopping is the act of a litigant who “repetitively availed of several judicial remedies in
different courts, simultaneously or successively, all substantially founded on the same transactions and the
same essential facts and circumstances and all raising substantially the same issues either pending or already
resolved by some other court to increase his chances of obtaining a favorable decision.
We see no forum shopping after considering these standards as neither litis pendentia nor res judicata
would result in one case from a ruling in the other notwithstanding that the appeal that subsequently became
the subject of CA GR SP No 71844 and the petition for certiorari in CA GR SP No 70439 both stemmed
from the trial court’s order dated April 3, 2002. The simple reason is that the petition and the appeal involve
two different and distinct issues.
Forum shopping is further negated when the nature of the proceedings are taken into account such as
an estate proceedings where the Rules expressly allows separate appeals and where the respondents have
meticulously distinguished what aspect of the RTC’s single Order could be appeal or not.
Hence, the Court does not see forum shopping as an issue that would have made a difference in the
appeal court’s ruling. Nor is it an issue that the appellate court should, by law, have fully ruled upon the
merits. We agree with respondent that the appellate court is not required “to resolve every contention and
issue raised by a party if it believes it is not neccessary to do so to decide the case.

Iones v. Henson Cruz

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Iones v. Henson Cruz

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Iones v. Henson Cruz

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Atty. Briones v.

Held: No. CA did not err. No forum shopping.

You might also like