FELINA RODRIGUEZ-LUNA, JOSE R. LUNA and ROBERTO R. LUNA, JR., petitioners, vs. THE HON.

INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, JOSE E. DELA ROSA and LUIS DELA ROSA, respondents. Ezequiel S. Consulta for petitioners. David M. Castro for respondents.

ABAD SANTOS, J.: This is a petition to review a decision of the defunct Court of Appeals. The petitioners are the heirs of Roberto R. Luna who was killed in a vehicular collision. The collision took place on January 18, 1970, at the go-kart practice area in Greenhills, San Juan, Metro Manila. Those involved were the go-kart driven by the deceased, a business executive, and a Toyota car driven by Luis dela Rosa, a minor of 13 years who had no driver's license. In a suit for damages brought by the heirs of Roberto R. Luna against Luis dela Rosa and his father Jose dela Rosa, the Court of First Instance of Manila in Civil Case No. 81078, rendered the following judgment: WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered sentencing the defendants Luis dela Rosa and Jose dela Rosa to pay, jointly and severally, to the plaintiffs the sum of P1,650,000.00 as unearned net earnings of Roberto Luna, P12,000.00 as compensatory damages, and P50,000.00 for the loss of his companionship, with legal interest from the date of this decision; plus attorney's fees in the sum of P50,000.00, and the costs of suit. (Record on Appeal, p. 35.) The defendants appealed to the defunct Court of Appeals which in a decision dated May 22, 1979, affirmed in toto that of the trial court. (Rollo, p. 48.) However, upon a motion for reconsideration filed by the defendants-appellants, the Court of Appeals, in a resolution dated June 19, 1981, modified its judgment thus: WHEREFORE, the decision rendered in this case is hereby modified insofar as the judgment ordering the defendants to pay, jointly and severally, the sum of P 1,650,000.00 to plaintiffs with legal interest from July 5, 1973, is concerned. In lieu thereof, defendants are hereby ordered to pay plaintiffs, jointly and severally, the sum of Four Hundred Fifty Thousand Pesos (P450,000.00) as unearned net earnings of Roberto R. Luna, with legal interest thereon from the date of the filing of the complaint until the whole amount shall have been totally paid. The rest of the other dispositions in the judgment a quo stand. (Rollo, pp. 3334.) Both parties filed separate petitions for review of the appellate court's decision.

In G.R. No. 57362, the petition for review of Jose and Luis dela Rosa was denied for lack of merit on October 5, 1981. Subsequently, they informed that the decision sought to be reviewed was not yet final because the Lunas had a pending motion for reconsideration. For prematurity, this Court set aside all previous resolutions. On February 16, 1983, acting upon the motion and manifestation of the petitioners, they were required to file an amended petition within thirty days from notice. On June 20, 1983, this Court resolved: "For failure of the petitioners to file an amended petition as required, this case is hereby DISMISSED and the dismissal is final." The instant case G.R. No. 62988 is the separate appeal of the Lunas. Their petition contains the following prayer: 1. That the petition be given due course; 2. That after notice and hearing, judgment be rendered, setting aside or modifying the RESOLUTION of respondent Court of Appeals dated June 19, 1981, attached as Annex "A" to the petition, only insofar as it reduced the unearned net earnings to P450,000.00, s as to affirm the trial court's finding as to the unearned net earnings of the deceased in the amount of P1,650,000.00; 3. Ordering that the award of attorney's fees shall also be with interest, at the legal rate. (Rollo, p. 27.) On June 27, 1983, the petition was given due course. (Rollo, pp. 122-123.) In the light of the foregoing, the resolution stated: It thus appears that the questions in esse are with respect to the award for unearned net earnings should the award be P450,000.00 only or should it be P1,650,000.00 as originally adjudged; and whether the award for attorney's fees shall also be with interest at the legal rate. The Court takes notice that the wrongful death occurred as early as January 18, 1970, and that until now the process of litigation is not yet over. In the meantime the value of the Philippine peso has been seriously eroded so that the heirs of the deceased may ultimately have a greatly depreciated judgment. In the interest of justice, the private respondents are hereby ordered to PAY to the petitioners within thirty (30) days from notice the following amounts adjudged against them: P450,000.00 for unearned net earnings of the deceased; (P12,000.00 as compensatory damages; P50,000.00 for the loss of his companionship with legal interest from July 3, 1973; and P50,000.00 as attorney's fees. Still to be resolved shall be the following: whether the award for unearned net earnings shall be increased to P1,650,000.00; and whether the award for attorney's fees shall also be with interest at the legal rate. The costs will be adjudged as a matter of course. (Rollo, p. 123.) The private respondents failed to pay the amounts and when required to explain they said that they had no cash money. Accordingly, this Court directed the trial court to issue a writ of execution but the attempt of the special sheriff to enter the private respondent's premises so

that he could make an inventory of personal properties was thwarted by guards and this Court had to direct the Chief of the Philippine Constabulary to assist in enforcing the writ of execution. The execution yielded only a nominal amount. In the meantime, Luis dela Rosa is now of age, married with two children, and living in Madrid, Spain with an uncle but only casually employed. It is said: "His compensation is hardly enough to support his family. He has no assets of his own as yet." (Rollo, p. 208.) 1. On the amount of the award. The award of P1,650,000.00 was based on two factors, namely: (a) that the deceased Roberto R. Luna could have lived for 30 more years; and (b) that his annual net income was P55,000.00, computed at P75,000.00 annual gross income less P20,000.00 annual personal expenses. This is what the trial court said on Luna's life expectancy: According to the American Experience Table of Mortality, at age 33 the life expectancy of Roberto Luna was 33.4 years, and under the Commissioner Standard Ordinary, used by our domestic insurance companies since 1968 for policies above P5,000.00 his life expectancy was 38.51 years. Dr. Vicente Campa, medical director of San Miguel Corporation, testified that he was the regular physician of Roberto Luna since his marriage to Felina Rodriguez in 1957. He said that except for a slight anemia which he had ten years earlier, Roberto Luna was of good health. Allowing for this condition, he could reasonably expect to have a life expectancy of 30 years. (Record on Appeal, p. 33.) The Court of Appeals in sustaining the trial court's conclusion said: We have not been persuaded to disturb the conclusion that the deceased had a life expectancy of thirty years. At the time of Luna's death, he was only thirty-three years old and in the best of health. With his almost perfect physical condition and his sound mind, the expectation that he could have lived for another thirty years is reasonable, considering that with his educational attainment, his social and financial standing, he had the means of staying fit and preserving his health and well-being. That he could have lived at least until the age of sixty-three years is an assessment which is more on the conservative side in view of the testimony of Dr. Vicente Campa that the general life expectancy nowadays had gone up to seventy years. (Rollo, p. 45.) The Court of Appeals likewise sustained the trial court in respect of Luna's annual income and expense. This is what the trial court said: Roberto Luna was 33 years old when he died, and was survived by his wife Felina Rodriguez-Luna, and two children, Roberto Jr., 13 years, and Jose, 12 years. His wife was 35 years old at the time. He declared a gross income of P16,900.00 for 1967 (Exhibit I), P29,700,000 for 1968 (Exhibit H) and P45,117.69 for 1969 (Exhibit G). He had investments in various corporations amounting to P136,116.00 (Exhibits K, M, M-1, N, N-1 to N-3, O, O-1, P, Q and R) and was the president and general manager of Rodlum Inc.; general manager of Esso Greenhills Service Center; Assistant manager of Jose

Rodriguez Lanuza Sons; director of Steadfast Investment Corporation; chairman and treasurer of Greenhills Industrial Corporation; vice-president of Oasis, Inc.; director of Nation Savings Association; director of Arlun Taxi; and treasurer of National Association of Retired Civil Employees. ... . His income tax returns show an increase in his income in the short period of three years. It is reasonable to expect that it would still go higher for the next fifteen years and reach a minimum of P75,000.00 a year. The potential increase in the earning capacity of a deceased person is recognized by the Supreme Court. ... the court believes that the expected gross earnings of Roberto Luna should be fixed in the sum of P75,000.00 a year for the period of his life expectancy of 30 years, but deducting his personal expenses which, because of his business and social standing the court in the amount of P20,000.00 a year, in accordance with the rulings of the Supreme Court. (Record on Appeal, pp. 32-34.) Acting on a motion for reconsideration filed by the dela Rosas, the Court of Appeals took into account the fact "that the deceased Roberto R. Luna had been engaged in car racing as a sport, having participated in tournaments both here and abroad;" it said that Luna's habit and manner of life should be "one of the factors affecting the value of mortality table in actions for damages;" and, consequently, concluded that Luna could not have lived beyond 43 years. The result was that the 30-year life expectancy of Luna was reduced to 10 years only. Further on the motion for reconsideration, the Court of Appeals ruled in respect of Luna's annual personal expenses: ... . Considering the escalating price of automobile gas which is a key expenditure in Roberto R. Luna's social standing, We should increase that amount to P30,000.00 as the would be personal expenses of the deceased per annum. (Rollo, p. 33.) The Court of Appeals then determined the amount of the award thus: P75,000.00 annual gross income less P30,000.00 annual personal expenses leaves P45,000.00 multiplied by 10 years of life expectancy and the product is P450,000.00. The petitioners contend that the Court of Appeals erred when by its resolution of June 19, 1981, it reduced Luna's life expectancy from 30 to 10 Years and increased his annual personal expenses from P20,000.00 to P30,000.00. We sustain the petitioners. The Court of Appeals, in reducing Luna's life expectancy from 30 to 10 years said that his habit and manner of life should be taken into account, i.e. that he had been engaged in car racing as a sport both here and abroad - a dangerous and risky activity tending to shorten his life expectancy. That Luna had engaged in car racing is not based on any evidence on record. That Luna was engaged in go-kart racing is the correct statement but then go-kart racing cannot be categorized as a dangerous sport for go-karts are extremely low slung, low powered vehicles, only slightly larger than foot-pedalled four wheeled conveyances. It was error on the part of the Court of Appeals to have disturbed the determination of the trial court which it had previously affirmed. Similarly, it was error for the Court of Appeals to reduce the net annual income of the deceased by increasing his annual personal expenses but without at the same time increasing his annual gross income. It stands to reason that if his annual personal expenses

should increase because of the "escalating price of gas which is a key expenditure in Roberto R. Luna's social standing" [a statement which lacks complete basis], it would not be unreasonable to suppose that his income would also increase considering the manifold sources thereof. In short, the Court of Appeals erred in modifying its original decision. 2. Attorney's fees with or without interest at the legal rate. The trial court awarded attorney's fees to the petitioners in the sum of P50,000.00. This award was affirmed by the Court of Appeals in its decision of May 22, 1979. The resolution of June 19, 1981, reaffirmed the award. The two decisions as well as the resolution do not provide for interest at the legal rate to be tacked to the award. The petitioners now pray that the award of attorney's fees be with interest at the legal rate from the date of the filing of the complaint. There is merit in this prayer. The attorney's fees were awarded in the concept of damages in a quasi-delict case and under the circumstances interest as part thereof may be adjudicated at the discretion of the court. (See Art. 2211, Civil Code.) As with the other damages awarded, the interest should accrue only from the date of the trial court's decision. The private respondents invoke Elcano vs. Hill, L-24803, May 26,1977; 77 SCRA 98, where it was held that Article 2180 of the Civil Code applied to Atty. Marvin Hill notwithstanding the emancipation by marriage of Reginald Hill, his son but since Reginald had attained age, as a matter of equity, the liability of Atty. Hill had become merely subsidiary to that of his son. It is now said that Luis dela Rosa, is now married and of legal age and that as a matter of equity the liability of his father should be subsidiary only. We are unwilling to apply equity instead of strict law in this case because to do so will not serve the ends of justice. Luis dela Rosa is abroad and beyond the reach of Philippine courts. Moreover, he does not have any property either in the Philippines or elsewhere. In fact his earnings are insufficient to support his family. WHEREFORE, the resolution of the Court of Appeals dated June 19, 1981, is hereby set aside; its decision dated May 22, 1979, is reinstated with the sole modification that the award for attorney's fees shall earn interest at the legal rate from July 5, 1973, the date of the trial court's decision. Costs against the private respondents. SO ORDERED. Aquino, Concepcion, Jr., Gutierrez, Jr. and De la Fuente, * JJ., concur. Makasiar (Chairman), J., I reserve my vote. INTESTATE ESTATE OF CARMEN DE LUNA (deceased), CATALINA MORALES GONZALES, administratrix-petitioner, vs. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT and ESPERANZA DE LUNA GONZALES AZUPARDO & ISIDORO DE LUNA GONZALES, respondents. Bausa, Ampil, Suarez, Parades & Bausa for petitioner.

CV Law Office & Associates for private respondents.

GUTIERREZ, JR., J.: This is a petition to review the resolution of the Court of Appeals dated July 19, 1985. On April 10, 1964, Jose de Luna Gonzales and former Judge Ramon Icasiano were appointed co-administrators of the estate of Carmen de Luna in Special Proceedings Case No. 52196. On March 3, 1968, Judge Icasiano died so Gonzales performed his duties as sole administrator of the estate. On February 4, 1980, Gonzales through counsel filed a motion for allowances and payment of administrator's commission in accordance with Section 7, Rule 85 of the Rules of Court leaving the matter to the discretion of the court. On February 13, 1980, the trial court issued an order requiring the administrator to define the fees he was demanding, furnishing copies to all parties and their respective counsel who were then required to file their opposition if any, within ten (10) days from receipt. On February 23, 1980 Jose de Luna Gonzales died. His heirs filed in his behalf on March 10, 1980 an Urgent Supplemental Motion for allowances and payment of administrator's commission or fees asking the amount of P100,000.00. Heir Trinidad Villajuan Vda. de Martinez filed an opposition to which Catalina M. Gonzales, widow of the late administrator filed a reply. On May 26, 1980, the heirs of the deceased administrator filed an urgent amended motion for payment of the deceased judicial administrator's compensation asking for P500,000.00. An opposition was filed by heir Trinidad Villajuan vda. de Martinez on the same date. Consequently, the trial court issued an order on May 26, 1980 setting the motion for hearing on May 30, 1980 at 9:00 o'clock in the morning and directing that copies be served on the parties and their counsel. On May 30, 1980, the heirs of Esperanza de Luna Gonzales Azupardo and Isidoro de Luna Gonzales filed their opposition to the motion and presented their witness, Siegfriedo Azupardo on July 16, 1980. On August 20 1980, Genaro Sevilla, et al. as movants intervenors filed their manifestation that they are also opposing the motion and adopting the memorandum and evidence presented by the other heirs. On September 30, 1980, the trial court issued an order directing the new administratrix Catalina M. Gonzales to submit within fifteen (15) days from receipt a complete and sworn inventory of all the goods, chattels, rights, credits and estate of the deceased Carmen de Luna, indicating therein the current values of each of these properties and with respect to the real properties, the current assessed as well as market value thereof. The administratrix filed the inventory as of April 30, 1980 where the total of the real and personal property of the estate was listed at P10,751,189.97.

On October 13, 1980, the trial court issued an order granting the compensation asked for by the late administrator which reads: In view of the foregoing, and for lack of sufficient grounds to deny the compensation prayed for, the Court hereby grants the amount of Five Hundred thousand Pesos (500,000.00) by way of compensation of the deceased administrator Jose de Luna for the services rendered by him as such administrator of the estate of Carmen de Luna for the period from April 10, 1964, up to February 22, 1980, deducting therefrom the sum of P1,000.00 already paid to him pursuant to this Court's Order dated April 27, 1977, and authorizing payment of the balance thereof to his heirs, Mrs. Catalina M. Gonzales, and her children Jose Gonzales, Jr. Carmen G. de Asis and Milagros K. Gonzales, said amount to be taken out of the available funds of the estate. (Rollo pp. 57-58) Subsequently, another order dated October 22, 1980 was issued, to wit: Acting upon the "Urgent Ex-Parte Motion For Authority To Withdraw From Bank Deposits and To Mortgage Estate Properties" filed by the administratrix, through counsel, dated October 15, 1980, and for the purpose of implementing the Order of this Court on October 13, 1980, the above motion is hereby granted. Accordingly, the administratrix, Catalina Vda. de Gonzales, is hereby authorized to satisfy the amount of P500,000.00 which was ordered paid to the heirs of the deceased administrator Jose de Luna, out of the bank deposits of the estate of Carmen de Luna with the Filipinas Bank and Trust Company and Philippine Trust Company, authorizing said administratrix to make a withdrawal and in the event that said deposits are insufficient to cover said amount, to obtain loans from any reputable lending institution, offering by way of mortgage or pledge, any property of the estate under administration, sufficient to satisfy the balance remaining unpaid, after interest and bank charges, and to inform the court of her compliance herewith.' (Rollo, p. 58). Esperanza de Luna Gonzales Azupardo and Isidoro de Luna Gonzales appealed to the Court of Appeals. On September 17, 1982, the Court of Appeals through Justice Gancayco decided in favor of the administrator and affirmed in toto the orders appealed from. The appellants then filed a motion for reconsideration of the said decision. On July 19, 1985, the Court of Appeals speaking through Justice Porfirio Sison modified the decision promulgated on September 17, 1982 with the following dispositive portion: WHEREFORE, in the interest of justice and equity and to protect the estate against undue or unauthorized waste and exhaustion which preservation in the end will redound to the benefit of all the parties, our decision of September 17, 1982 is hereby modified by adhering to our finding that the late Jose de Luna Gonzales as Judicial Administrator of the estate of Carmen de Luna in Sp. Proc. No. 52196, is indeed entitled to his Administrator's fee,

but in the reduced and amount of P4,312.50 including the sum of Pl,000.00 previously received or still a balance of P3,312.50. No pronouncement as to costs. (Rollo, p. 26) On October 7, 1985, the Court of Appeals denied the motion for reconsideration of the aforesaid decision filed by the administratrix. Hence, this petition for review. The lone assignment of error raised by the petitioner is that "the respondent appellate court committed serious legal error in the interpretation and application of Section 7, Rule 85 of the Rules of Court and acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess or jurisdiction in modifying the previous decision of the Court of Appeals dated September 17, 1982 by reducing the administrator's commission from P500,000.00 (as adjudged by the Trial Court and upheld by the then Court of Appeals) to a mere P4,312.50 by its Resolution dated July 19, 1985. The issue posed for resolution is whether or not Jose de Luna Gonzales is entitled to the amount of P500,000.00 by way of compensation as administrator of the estate of Carmen de Luna. The opposing views of the parties are summarized by the trial court as follows: The last inventory of the late Jose de Luna Gonzales on April 25, 1975 showed a gross estate in the amount of P890,865.25, and since then not only the personal assets of the estate increased by way of increments, dividends and interests earned but also the real properties thereof, by way of additional fishponds, farm lands and coconut lands located in Bulacan, Bulacan and Catanawan, Quezon which said administrator discovered and brought to the estate, so much as that property of the estate increased in value. While it is true as alleged in their urgent amended motion for payment of the deceased administrator's compensation, that the value of the estate is conservatively placed at P2,000,000.00 yet this does not appear to be so, for the inventory as of April 30, 1980 of the present administratrix, Mrs. Catalina M. Gonzales, who is also the wife of the late administrator, shows that the real and personal estate of the deceased Carmen de Luna amounts to P10,751,189.97. This last inventory could have been the same inventory filed by the late administrator, had he lived longer. The present administratrix, Mrs. Catalina Gonzales, was appointed as such on March 28, 1980 and upon taking her oath of office and filing the corresponding administratrix's bond, was issued the corresponding letters of administration. At the hearing of her petition to be appointed new administratrix of the estate, she claims that during the lifetime of her husband, the former administrator, their joint efforts led to the discovery of the fishponds, farm lands and coconut lands in the province of Bulacan and Quezon, and the growth and accumulation of the assets and properties of the estate were due to their continuous, dedicated and concerned efforts coupled with the sound and judicious care employed by them in the management of this estate. She further testified that the late administrator had adequately and religiously executed the trust reposed on him, having attended to the wise, advantageous and safe placement of the funds of the estate, but without however, neglecting the payment of the estate and real estate taxes and the submission of his reports to the Court.

The claimant-heir, Trinidad Villajuan Vda. de Martinez and the other claimant-heirs Esperanza de Luna Gonzales Azupardo and Isidoro de Luna Gonzales filed separate oppositions. Trinidad Villajuan Vda. de Martinez claims that the counsel for the alleged heirs of Jose de Luna Gonzales including his surviving wife, administratrix Catalina M. Gonzales, is the law firm Bausa, Ampil, Suarez, Parades and Bausa, which is also the counsel for Centro Escolar University wherein the shares of stocks of said university form the bulk of the present estate so much so that Attys. Bausa, Ampil, Suarez, Parades and Bausa and Ass. have conflict of interests in handling the affairs of their aforesaid clients and that not only has said law office conflicting interest but likewise its client, the present administratrix Catalina M. Gonzales, who is at the same time a claimant of the estate under her administration. The oppositor further asserts that claims against the estate can not be filed in the form of an urgent motion but must be filed as claims against the estate. It is likewise claimed by the oppositor that the alleged heirs of Jose de Luna Gonzales had never been substituted as parties in this proceeding because no motion had ever been filed and no order had been issued for substitution of the late Jose de Luna Gonzales. She insinuates that the record of this case will show that oppositor Trinidad Villajuan Vda. de Martinez bad long prayed for the appointment of Jerry Martines Hervas as the administrator of the estate because Jose de Luna Gonzales had long become physically incompetent to administer the estate; and that while it is true the bulk of the estate consists of the shares of stocks of the Centro Escolar University, yet the late administrator, Jose de Luna Gonzales, had nothing to do with the increase in the number of shares of stocks of the Centro Escolar University, and if ever its value increased, the said administrator had also nothing to do with the same inasmuch as during the long duration that Jose de Luna Gonzales was administrator of the estate he never attempted to become a director of Centro Escolar University; that although the urgent motion speaks of fishponds farm lands and coconut lands in Bulacan, Bulacan and Catanuan, Quezon, which were discovered and brought to the estate, there were no titles to said properties and that said administrator and his counsel had not done anything regarding the same; and that the properties referred to by them have long been disposed of by the late Carmen de Luna in favor of innocent third party. The other group of claimant-heirs, Esperanza de Luna Gonzales Azupardo and Isidoro de Luna Gonzales claim that the urgent amended motion of the heirs of the deceased Jose de Luna Gonzales violated the rule on prior notice as required and mandated by Rule 85 Section 10 of the Rules of Court which provides that before the account of an administrator is allowed notice shall be given to persons interested of the time and place of examining and allowing the same; the said urgent amended motion is not under oath and in utter disregard of the legal safeguards required under Rule 85 Section 9 of the Rules of Court which mandates that every matter with respect to account must be under oath; that movants if allowed compensation should apportion the commission with the co- administrator; that if there was an increase in the value of the estate or any part thereof, Sec. 2, Rule 85 strictly prohibits and expressly denies executor or administrator from profiting thereby; that the value of the estate increased by natural accretion or by government reassessment and not thru the efforts of the late administrator; that the amount being claimed is highly unconscionable and unreasonable and besides it is not in consonance with the amount specified under Rule 85, Sec. 7 which

allows only one-fourth per cent of the entire value of the estate and which must be allowed only after a settlement of the estate is finally made; that the amount being claimed as compensation is not itemized, hence, purely conjectural, hypothetical and without basis in fact and in law; that in cases where compensation for extraordinary services are claimed, the better practice is to itemize the account and explain fully in what particulars the services are extraordinary or unusual; and that the late administrator Jose de Luna Gonzales had long been compensated by the estate arising from' the admitted sale for voting rights of Centro Escolar University shares, and for this matter this Court may require an accounting under Rule 85, Sec. 8 of the Rules of Court; and lastly, that as admitted by movants themselves in their urgent amended motion, that the administration of the estate spanned a prolonged period of sixteen years and yet the same is not yet closed or terminated and therefore the administrator should be denied compensation for his services, for the prolongation of the settlement of the estate is due entirely to his effort to defraud the heirs, and due to his neglect, the administration has been too expensive. (Rollo, pp. 61-65) Section 7, Rule 85 states: SEC. 7. What expenses and fees allowed executor or administrator. Not to charge for services as attorney. - Compensation provided by will controls unless renounced. An executor or administrator shall be allowed the necessary expenses in the care, management, and settlement of the estate, and for his services, four pesos per day for the time actually and necessarily employed, or a commission upon the value of so much of the estate as comes into his possession and is finally disposed of by him in the payment of debts, expenses, legacies, or distributive shares, or by delivery to heirs or devisees, of two per centum of the first five thousand pesos of such value, one per centum of so much of such value as exceed five thousand pesos and does not exceed thirty thousand pesos, one-half per centum of so much of such value as exceeds thirty thousand pesos and does not exceed one hundred thousand pesos. But in any special case, where the estate is large, and the settlement has been attended with great difficulty, and has required a high degree of capacity on the part of the executor or administrator, a greater sum may be allowed. If objection to the fees allowed be taken, the allowance may be re-examined on appeal. If there are two or more executors or administrators, the compensation shall be apportioned among them by the court according to the services actually rendered by them respectively. When the executor or administrator is an attorney, he shall not charge against the estate any professional fees for legal services rendered by him. When the deceased by will makes some other provision for the compensation of his executor, that provision shall be a full satisfaction for his services unless by a written instrument filed in the court he renounces all claim to the compensation provided by the will. Pursuant to the above provision, an administrator is entitled by way of compensation to the following:

(a) P4.00 per day "for the time actually and necessarily employed" by him as such administrator, or (b) a "commission upon the value of so much of the estate as comes into his possession and was finally disposed of by him," according to the schedule therein provided. The appellate court in its resolution dated July 19, 1985 arrived at the amount of P4,313.50 by applying the schedule provided in computing for commissions. The respondents also contend that the estimates of the real properties reflected in the inventory were highly exaggerated to jack-up the asking price and excluded from the computation of the fee of the administrator the total value of the stocks and cash deposits of the administrator. Consequently, it placed the value of the estate at P1,500,000.00 more or less, the value presented by the lawyers of the administratrix in their first motion for compensation of de Luna Gonzales, dated March 10, 1980. We rule otherwise. The applicable provision is the proviso which states: "in any special case, where the estate is large and the settlement has been attended with great difficulty and has required a high degree of capacity on the part of the executor or administrator, a greater sum may be allowed." A wide latitude, leeway or discretion is therefore given to the trial court to grant a greater sum. And the determination of whether the administration and liquidation of an estate have been attended with greater difficulty and have required a high degree of capacity on the part of the executor or administrator rests on the sound discretion of the court which took cognizance of the estate. (Rodriguez v. Silva, 90 Phil. 752 [1952]). The trial court, in applying this proviso awarded the sum of P500,000.00 as administrator's compensation. There appears to be no sound justification why the appellate court should interfere with the exercise of the trial court's discretion, absent a showing that the trial court committed any abuse of discretion in granting a greater remuneration to the petitioner. The trial court's order is based on substantial evidence and the applicable rule. In the case of Litton Mills v. Galleon Traders, et al. (G.R. No. 40867, July 26, 1988), this court had the occasion to explain: 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. (Butuan Bay Export Co. v. CA, 97 SCRA 297). The records of the case is replete with evidence to prove that the late administrator Jose de Luna Gonzales had taken good care of the estate and performed his duties without any complaint from any of the heirs. In fact, the appellate court agrees with the trial court as it held: ... While it may be true that the inventory of the properties of the estate as of April 25, 1975 was only P 890,865.25 it has been shown that the value of the estate has increased not only by the efforts of the late administrator to take

good care of the same but in succeeding to locate other properties belonging to the estate so that when he submitted the inventory of the properties, real and personal of the estate as of April 13, 1980 the total appraisal thereof appears to be over P10 M. No objection thereto appears to have been interposed. (Rollo, p. 68) And with regards to the inventory, the respondents did not even present any evidence to counter or disprove the valuations made so their claim that the estimated P10 million value of the properties was exaggerated is without basis and purely conjectural. With the well settled rule that the findings of the trial court are given great respect, we therefore sustain the finding that the value of the estate is worth P10 million as found by the trial court. Considering the size of the estate and extent of the care given by the administrator, the amount asked for is not unreasonable and should therefore be allowed. WHEREFORE, there appearing to be no manifest error or abuse of discretion for the Court of Appeals to modify the trial court's orders, the resolution of the Intermediate Appellate Court dated July 19, 1985 is hereby SET ASIDE and its previous decision dated September 17, 1982 is REINSTATED. SO ORDERED.