You are on page 1of 1

SP6.5 Quasha Ancheta Pena and Nolasco Law Office v. LCN Construction Corp.

FACTS: Atty. Syquia and Quasha were appointed administrators of the estate of the
deceased Raymond triviere. They dutifully discharge their obligation but have not been
paid for service they rendered for over a decade. They filed a motion for payment in the
Trial court which the latter granted. LCN, as the only remaining claimant of the estate,
opposed the same and on appeal to the appellate court, the Court of Appeals promulgated a
Decision essentially ruling in favor of LCN. While the Court of Appeals conceded that Atty.
Syquia and the Quasha Law Office, as the administrators of the estate of the late Raymond
Triviere, were entitled to administrator’s fees and litigation expenses, they could not claim
the same from the funds of the estate. Referring to Section 7, Rule 85 of the Revised Rules
of Court, the appellate court reasoned that the award of expenses and fees in favor of
executors and administrators is subject to the qualification that where the executor or
administrator is a lawyer, he shall not charge against the estate any professional fees for
legal services rendered by him. the former’s petition was given partial merit in that the
awards given to the heirs and administration were deleted. The SC held that the award in
favor of the heirs is already a distribution of the estate. However, it awarded attorney’s fees
to petitioner to be sourced from the share of the Triviere children upon final distribution of
the estate.

ISSUE: WON CA erred in nullifying the awards of attorneys fees in favor of the co-
administrators?

RUlING: YES
Section 2, Rule 82 provides in clear and unequivocal terms the mode for replacing an
administrator of an estate upon the death of an administrator. The records of the case are
wanting in evidence that quasha office or any of its lawyer substituted atty. Quasha as co-
administration of the estate. However None of the document attached pertains to the
issuance of a letter of administration to pertitioner quasha in 1996 as required in Sec 2 rule
82. However this court is thus inclined to give credence to petitioner contention that while
he rendered legal service for the settlement of the estate of Raymond triviere he was not
serve as co-administrator. SC ruled that atty. Quasha 1996 is entitled to attorney fees and
litigation partially granted amounting to 100,000 pesos as prayed in the motion. The same
may be collected from the shares of the children upon final distribution of estate on the
basis that Section 1, Rule 91 of the Revised Rules of Court