UY TIOCO VS IMPERIAL CASE DIGEST

G.R. No. L-29414 July 17, 1928
TEODORICO UY TIOCO, petitioner,
vs.
CARLOS IMPERIAL, Judge of First Instance of Manila, and ALEJANDRO M. PANIS, respondents.

SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS; RULE 85

FACTS:

• Respondent Panis was counsel for the administration of said estate and that he on October 31, 1927, before the final settlement of accounts, presented a motion in the probate proceedings for the allowance of attorney's fees in the sum of P15,000.

• Respondent judge, granted the motion and allowed the fees claimed by Panis

• Yangco, in his capacity as guardian ad litem of the minors Pedro and Bruno Uy Tioco, the sons and then the only heirs of the deceased, presented a motion for reconsideration on the grounds that he was not notified of the motion for the allowance of fees and that the fees allowed were excessive.

• This motion was denied, The respondent judge holding that the curador ad litem might have the right to intervene in the case but have no absolute right to be notified of the motion

• The guardian ad litem gave notice of his intention to appeal to the Supreme Court. 

• Attorney Felix Wijangco, on behalf of Panis, filed a motion in the probated proceedings in which be set forth that the minor Bruno Uy Tioco is now deceased and that his share of inheritance will go to his father, the herein petitioner; that the property involved in the case is community property in which one-half belongs to the petitioner; that consequently the minor Pedro Uy Tioco is only entitled to a one-fourth of the property pertaining to the estate, and that therefore his appeal from the order allowing the attorney's fees can only relate to one-fourth of the amount allowed, wherefore the movent asked that the administrator be ordered to make payments of three-fourths of the amount within five days from the presentation of the motion. 

• The guardian ad litem objected

• The respondent judge ordered the administrator to make payment of three-fourths of P15,000

ISSUE:

Whether or not the respondent judge erred in granting the attorney to charge his attorney's fees on the estate 

HELD:

• The respondent judge is hereby prohibited from enforcing the payment of the attorney's fees above-mentioned until the appeal taken by Yangco, as guardian ad litem for the minor Pedro Uy Tioco, has been passed upon by this court or dismissed.

• The arguments submitted indicate a misconception of the character of the liability for the attorney's fees are claimed are supposed to have been rendered to the executor or administrator to assist him in the execution of his trust. The attorney can therefore not hold the estate directly liable for his fees; such fees are allowed to the executor or administrator and not to the attorney. The liability for the payment rests on the executor or administrator, but if the fees paid are beneficial to the estate and reasonable, he is entitled to the reimbursement from the estate. Such payment should be included in his accounts and the reimbursement therefore settled upon the notice prescribed in section 682 of the Code of Civil Procedure.