G.R. No. 140929 ; May 26, 2005
MARGARITO R. JAMERO, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE ACHILLES L. MELICOR, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Tagbilaran City, Branch 4, ATTY. ALBERTO BAUTISTA, in his capacity as the appointed SPECIAL ADMINISTRATOR, and ERNESTO R. JAMERO, respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Margarito R. Jamero filed a petition for the settlement of his mother’s estate and sought his appointment as regular administrator. His brother, private respondent Ernesto R. Jamero, opposed this. The Regional Trial Court (RTC), upon Ernesto’s motion, appointed Atty. Alberto Bautista as special administrator. Margarito received the order on December 11, 1998, and filed a motion for reconsideration on December 28, 1998. The RTC denied this motion on February 26, 1999, which Margarito received on March 4, 1999. On April 21, 1999, he filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA) assailing the appointment.
The CA dismissed the petition outright. It found that Margarito failed to state the material dates of filing his motion for reconsideration and its denial, violating procedural rules. The CA also calculated that even if considered, the petition was filed three days late. In its denial of the motion for reconsideration, the CA added that the appointment of a special administrator is a discretionary, interlocutory order, not appealable nor subject to certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari on procedural grounds and in ruling that the appointment of a special administrator is not subject to certiorari.

RULING

The Supreme Court partially granted the petition. On the procedural issue, the Court held that the CA erred in dismissing the petition based on the alleged late filing. The reglementary period for filing a petition for certiorari is governed by Supreme Court Circular No. 39-98, which amended Section 4, Rule 65. This circular, being a procedural rule, is retroactive and applies to actions pending at the time of its effectivity. Applying the circular, Margarito had sixty days from March 4, 1999 (notice of denial of his motion for reconsideration) to file his petition, making his filing on April 21, 1999, timely. The CA’s outright dismissal was therefore incorrect.
On the substantive issue, the Supreme Court clarified that while the appointment of a special administrator is indeed an interlocutory and discretionary act of the probate court, it is not entirely immune from judicial review. Such an order may be challenged via a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 if it is demonstrated that the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Consequently, the CA must still evaluate the merits of Margarito’s claim that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in appointing Atty. Bautista. The case was remanded to the CA for further proceedings on this substantive issue.