Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 36 views

    SP-18 Co vs. Rosario FULL TEXT

    Uploaded by

    bentley Coby
    The Supreme Court of the Philippines denied a petition for review of a Court of Appeals decision that affirmed the revocation of the appointment of a special co-administrator of an estate. The trial court revoked the appointment because the appointee was facing criminal charges that clouded his ability to properly handle the estate. The appellate court and Supreme Court found no abuse of discretion in the trial court's decision, as it was based on reason and the circumstances of the case. The Supreme Court also directed the trial court to promptly appoint a regular administrator to avoid further litigation on this issue.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    SP-18 Co vs. Rosario FULL TEXT

    Uploaded by

    bentley Coby
    36 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court of the Philippines denied a petition for review of a Court of Appeals decision that affirmed the revocation of the appointment of a special co-administrator of an estate. The trial court revoked the appointment because the appointee was facing criminal charges that clouded his ability to properly handle the estate. The appellate court and Supreme Court found no abuse of discretion in the trial court's decision, as it was based on reason and the circumstances of the case. The Supreme Court also directed the trial court to promptly appoint a regular administrator to avoid further litigation on this issue.

    Original Description:

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court of the Philippines denied a petition for review of a Court of Appeals decision that affirmed the revocation of the appointment of a special co-administrator of an estate. The trial court revoked the appointment because the appointee was facing criminal charges that clouded his ability to properly handle the estate. The appellate court and Supreme Court found no abuse of discretion in the trial court's decision, as it was based on reason and the circumstances of the case. The Supreme Court also directed the trial court to promptly appoint a regular administrator to avoid further litigation on this issue.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    36 views2 pages

    SP-18 Co vs. Rosario FULL TEXT

    Uploaded by

    bentley Coby
    The Supreme Court of the Philippines denied a petition for review of a Court of Appeals decision that affirmed the revocation of the appointment of a special co-administrator of an estate. The trial court revoked the appointment because the appointee was facing criminal charges that clouded his ability to properly handle the estate. The appellate court and Supreme Court found no abuse of discretion in the trial court's decision, as it was based on reason and the circumstances of the case. The Supreme Court also directed the trial court to promptly appoint a regular administrator to avoid further litigation on this issue.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Republic of the Philippines Subsequently, petitioner brought the matter to the CA on

    SUPREME COURT petition for certiorari under Rule 65. In the aforesaid


    Manila challenged October 28, 2003 Decision,9 the appellate court
    affirmed the revocation of the appointment and dismissed
    THIRD DIVISION the petition. Thus, the instant petition for review
    on certiorari under Rule 45.
    G.R. No. 160671             April 30, 2008
    The petition is bereft of merit.
    LUIS L. CO, petitioner, 
    vs. We affirm the appellate court’s ruling that the trial court
    HON. RICARDO R. ROSARIO, in his capacity as the did not act with grave abuse of discretion in revoking
    Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 66, Alvin’s appointment as special co-administrator. Settled is
    Makati City, ELIZABETH RACHEL CO, ASTRID the rule that the selection or removal
    MELODY CO-LIM, GENEVIEVE CO-CHUN, of special administrators is not governed by the rules
    CAROL CO, KEVIN CO, EDWARD CO and the regarding the selection or removal
    ESTATE OF LIM SEE TE, respondents. of regular administrators. 10 Courts may appoint or remove
    special administrators based on grounds other than those
    DECISION enumerated in the Rules, at their discretion.11 As long as the
    said discretion is exercised without grave abuse, higher
    courts will not interfere with it. 12 This, however, is no
    NACHURA, J.:
    authority for the judge to become partial, or to make his
    personal likes and dislikes prevail over, or his passions to
    For the resolution of the Court is a petition for review rule, his judgment. The exercise of such discretion must be
    on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court based on reason, equity, justice and legal principles.13
    questioning the October 28, 2003 Decision1 of the Court of
    Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 72055.
    Thus, even if a special administrator had already been
    appointed, once the court finds the appointee no longer
    The relevant facts and proceedings follow. entitled to its confidence, it is justified in withdrawing the
    appointment and giving no valid effect thereto.14 The
    On March 4, 1998, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) OF special administrator is an officer of the court who is
    Makati City, Branch 66, in Sp. Proc. No. M-4615, subject to its supervision and control and who is expected
    appointed petitioner and Vicente O. Yu, Sr. as the special to work for the best interest of the entire estate, especially
    administrators of the estate of the petitioner’s father, Co with respect to its smooth administration and earliest
    Bun Chun.2However, on motion of the other heirs, the trial settlement. 15
    court set aside petitioner’s appointment as special co-
    administrator.3Petitioner consequently, nominated his son, In this case, we find that the trial court’s judgment on the
    Alvin Milton Co (Alvin, for brevity), for appointment as issue of Alvin’s removal as special co-administrator is
    co-administrator of the estate.4 On August 31, 1998, the grounded on reason, equity, justice and legal principle. It is
    RTC appointed Alvin as special co-administrator.5 not characterized by patent and gross capriciousness, pure
    whim and abuse, arbitrariness or despotism, as to be
    Almost four years thereafter, the RTC, acting on a correctible by the writ of certiorari.16 In fact, the appellate
    motion6 filed by one of the heirs, issued its January 22, court correctly observed that:
    2002 Order7 revoking and setting aside the appointment of
    Alvin. The trial court reasoned that Alvin had become In ruling to revoke the appointment of Alvin
    unsuitable to discharge the trust given to him as special co- Milton Co, the lower court took into consideration
    administrator because his capacity, ability or competence to the fiduciary nature of the office of a special
    perform the functions of co-administrator had been administrator which demands a high degree of
    beclouded by the filing of several criminal cases against trust and confidence in the person to be appointed.
    him, which, even if there was no conviction yet, had The court a quo observed that, burdened with the
    provided the heirs ample reason to doubt his fitness to criminal charges of falsification of commercial
    handle the subject estate with utmost fidelity, trust and documents leveled against him (sic), and the
    confidence. corresponding profound duty to defend himself in
    these proceedings, Alvin Milton Co’s ability and
    Aggrieved, petitioner moved for the reconsideration of the qualification to act as special co-administrator of
    said Order, but this was denied in the RTC Order8 of May the estate of the decedent are beclouded, and the
    14, 2002. recall of his appointment is only proper under the
    attendant circumstances. Such reasoning by the
    court a quo finds basis in actual logic and

    1
    probability. Without condemning the accused man
    (sic) as guilty before he is found such by the
    appropriate tribunal, the court merely declared that
    it is more consistent with the demands of justice
    and orderly processes that the petitioner’s son, who
    is already bidden to defend himself against
    criminal charges for falsification in other fora be
    relieved of his duties and functions as special
    administrator, to avoid conflicts and possible
    abuse.

    The Court finds no grave abuse of discretion


    attending such ruling, as it was reached based on
    the court a quo’s own fair assessment of the
    circumstances attending the case below, and the
    applicable laws.17

    As a final note, the Court observes that this prolonged


    litigation on the simple issue of the removal of a special co-
    administrator could have been avoided if the trial court
    promptly appointed a regular administrator. We, therefore,
    direct the trial court to proceed with the appointment of a
    regular administrator as soon as practicable.

    WHEREFORE, the petition for review on certiorari is


    hereby DENIED. The October 28, 2003 Decision of the
    Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 72055
    is AFFIRMED.

    SO ORDERED.

    You might also like