Macky vs. Angeles and Mackay

A trial court may order execution pending appeal of an order appointing an administrator when good reasons exist, such as preventing the estate from being left without an administrator and expediting settlement, and such order does not constitute grave abuse of discretion. Additionally, a petition for review under Rule 45 is limited to errors of law; allegations of grave abuse of discretion are beyond its scope.

Petitioner Arturo G. Macky and private respondent Antonio G. Mackay are parties in intestate estate proceedings for the estate of Eufrocina G. Mackay, in which petitioner was appointed regular administrator. The Rules of Court, specifically Section 2, Rule 39, allow discretionary execution of a judgment or final order pending appeal upon good reasons stated in a special order. The dispute centers on the trial court's authority to issue letters of administration to a substitute administrator before the appeal from the removal order is perfected.

Petitioner Arturo G. Macky was appointed regular administrator of the intestate estate of Eufrocina G. Mackay on March 20, 1996, by the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City, Branch 125. Private respondent Antonio G. Mackay later sought petitioner's removal.

After nearly twenty-four months following his appointment, petitioner had not submitted the requisite inventory of estate assets and liabilities, nor had he paid the taxes due on the estate. This delay prompted private respondent to file an urgent motion on March 10, 1998 for petitioner's removal as administrator. Petitioner filed an opposition on March 30, 1998, but failed to attend any of the scheduled dates of hearing despite notices sent to him. On July 15, 1998, the trial court issued an order relieving petitioner as administrator and appointing private respondent as his substitute, upon the filing of an administrator's bond in the amount of P20,000.00.

Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied on August 28, 1998, and he received a copy of the denial on September 7, 1998. On September 24, 1998, the trial court issued letters of administration in favor of private respondent. On September 29, 1998, petitioner filed a notice of appeal and a record on appeal. To enjoin the implementation of the trial court's orders, petitioner filed on October 8, 1998, with the Court of Appeals, a petition for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction and/or restraining order, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 49219.

The Court of Appeals denied petitioner's application for a temporary restraining order on November 26, 1998, on the ground that petitioner had no clear legal right thereto. On April 14, 2000, the appellate court dismissed the petition, finding that the trial court did not commit grave abuse of discretion in removing petitioner and in immediately issuing letters of administration to private respondent. The CA affirmed the trial court's orders, and later denied reconsideration on July 26, 2000. The Supreme Court then reviewed the petition.

• Premature Issuance of Letters: Petitioner argued that the order appointing private respondent as administrator having been appealed, the same cannot be immediately executed by granting letters of administration to private respondent, and that the CA erred in affirming the orders because they were issued in violation of petitioner's right to appeal and with grave abuse of discretion.
• Presumption of Regularity: Petitioner argued that the CA erred in applying the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty despite the premature issuance of letters of administration in violation of the reglementary period on appeals in special proceedings.
• Excess of Jurisdiction: Petitioner argued that the CA gravely abused its discretion in resolving issues which are proper subjects of appeal and not raised in the petition, specifically the question of private respondent's qualification for appointment and the propriety of petitioner's discharge.

• Execution Pending Appeal: Whether the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing letters of administration to private respondent before the appeal from the order appointing him was perfected.
• Scope of Rule 45 Appeal: Whether the Court of Appeals erred in resolving issues not raised in the petition for certiorari, given that the petition before it was an original action for certiorari under Rule 65.

• Execution Pending Appeal: No. The trial court did not commit grave abuse of discretion because execution pending appeal was justified under Section 2, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, and the rule in De Borja vs. Tan.
• Scope of Rule 45 Appeal: No. The Court of Appeals did not err because under Rule 45, only errors of law may be raised; grave abuse of discretion is beyond the scope of an appeal by certiorari.

• Execution Pending Appeal: The Court cited De Borja vs. Tan, which held that a trial court does not act with grave abuse of discretion in ordering the immediate assumption into office of an appointed administrator before the perfection of an appeal where sufficient reasons exist to order execution pending appeal. Section 2, Rule 39 allows discretionary execution upon good reasons stated in a special order. Here, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's order granting discretionary execution on the grounds that the estate would be left without an administrator and that prompt settlement had been unduly delayed. Because trial courts have the duty to expedite settlement of estates, and the Rules expressly authorize execution pending appeal, no grave abuse of discretion was committed.

• Scope of Rule 45 Appeal: The Court noted that in appeals by certiorari under Rule 45, only errors of law may be raised. The remedies of appeal and certiorari are mutually exclusive and not alternative or successive. Certiorari as an original action under Rule 65 is the proper remedy for grave abuse of discretion. Since petitioner alleged grave abuse of discretion, that allegation is beyond the scope of a Rule 45 appeal and deserves scant consideration.

• Execution Pending Appeal in Special Proceedings — A trial court may order execution of a judgment or final order pending appeal upon good reasons stated in a special order, and such order does not constitute grave abuse of discretion if the estate would be left without an administrator and settlement has been unduly delayed. Applied here to affirm the issuance of letters of administration to private respondent before petitioner's appeal was perfected.
• Mutual Exclusivity of Appeal and Certiorari — The remedies of appeal and certiorari are mutually exclusive and not alternative or successive. An appeal under Rule 45 is limited to errors of law, while an original action for certiorari under Rule 65 addresses grave abuse of discretion. Applied to reject petitioner's allegation of grave abuse in a Rule 45 petition.

• "In De Borja v. Tan, we held that the trial court does not act with grave abuse of discretion in ordering the immediate assumption into office of one who has been appointed as administrator before the perfection of an appeal from the order appointing him as such, where sufficient reasons exist to order execution pending appeal." — This states the controlling doctrine on execution pending appeal in administrator appointments.
• "The remedies of appeal and certiorari are mutually exclusive and not alternative or successive." — This defines the relationship between Rule 45 and Rule 65.
• "An allegation of grave abuse of discretion like the one made by the petitioner here, being beyond the scope of appeals by certiorari, deserves scant consideration." — This explains why the Court disregarded the grave abuse allegation.

• De Borja vs. Tan, 93 Phil. 167 (1953) — Controlling precedent for the rule that a trial court may order immediate assumption of an administrator before appeal is perfected if sufficient reasons exist.
• Reas vs. Bonife, G.R. Nos. 54348-49, 17 October 1990, 190 SCRA 493 — Cited for the rule that in appeals by certiorari under Rule 45, only errors of law may be raised.
• Fajardo vs. Bautista, G.R. Nos. 102193-97, 10 May 1994, 232 SCRA 291 — Cited for the principle that appeal and certiorari are mutually exclusive.

• Section 2, Rule 39, Rules of Court — Allows discretionary execution of a judgment or final order pending appeal upon good reasons stated in a special order. Applied to justify the trial court's issuance of letters of administration to private respondent before petitioner's appeal was perfected.
• Rule 45, Rules of Court — Governs appeals by certiorari to the Supreme Court, limited to errors of law. Applied to reject petitioner's allegation of grave abuse of discretion.
• Rule 65, Rules of Court — Governs original actions for certiorari, addressing grave abuse of discretion. Distinguished from Rule 45.

• Bellosillo (Chairman)
• Austria-Martinez
• Callejo, Sr.
• Tinga