G.R. No. 72424 – 252 Phil. 253 – 170 SCRA 246 – Political Law – Constitutional Law – The Judicial Department – Judicial Power; Expanded Judicial Power – Grave Abuse of Discretion
Jose Gonzales has been the administrator of the Estate of Carmen de Luna since 1964. In 1980, he filed a motion before the settlement court concerned for the payment of his commission. He asked that he paid Php500,000.00. He justified his claim by stating that the value of the estate increased from Php800k to Php10M. He submitted supporting documents. The trial court granted his motion.
The other heirs appealed the decision of the trial court. They argued that Jose Gonzales jacked up the valuation of the estate to justify the large commission. The Court of Appeals denied the appeal however, upon a motion for reconsideration, the CA ruled that indeed Jose Gonzales jacked up the value of the estate; that the actual value of the estate was only Php1.5M; that the Rules of Court which provides that Jose Gonzales is only entitled to Php4.00 a day should prevail; and that he is only entitled to Php4,313.00 as commission.
The decision of the CA was appealed before the Supreme Court. It was argued that there was no basis for the CA to reverse the factual findings of the trial court.
ISSUE: Whether or not it was proper for the CA to reverse the decision of the trial court.
HELD: No. There is no sound justification on the part of the CA to interfere with the findings of the trial court absent a showing that the trial court committed any abuse of discretion in granting the Php500k commission to Gonzales.
As previously held, an act of a court or tribunal may only be considered as in grave abuse of discretion when the same was performed in a capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment which is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation of law, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility.
In this case, the record shows that indeed Gonzales was able to prove by evidence the sizable increase of the value of the estate. The allegation of the other heirs that the valuation was jacked up was not supported by any evidence. There is no basis for the CA to depart from the factual findings of the trial court.
