Sheker v Estate of Sheker
letters of testamentary or of administration, all persons having money
Facts:
1. Alice Sheker died and her estate was left under the administration of
Victoria Medina. Alice left a holographic will which was admitted to
probate by the Regional Trial Court of Iligan City. The trial court issued
an order for all creditors to file their claims against the estate. In
compliance therewith, Alan Joseph Sheker filed a contingent money
claim in the amount of P206,250.00 representing the amount of his
commission as an agent for selling some properties for Alice; and
another P275k as reimbursements for expenses he incurred.
2. Medina moved for the dismissal of Alan Sheker’s claim alleging among
others that the money claim filed by Alan Sheker is void because the
latter did not attach a certification of non-forum shopping, failed to pay
docket fees, and failed to provide a written explanation on the service
and filing by registered mail. RTC dismissed the claim because of such
grounds.
Issue: W/N the money claims filed by Alan Sheker is valid
Held: Yes.
1. Before anything, Alan Sheker’s contention that rules in ordinary
action are only supplementary rules in special proceedings is not
entirely correct. According to Sec. 2, Rule 72, the ruled provided for
in ordinary civil actions shall be applicable as far as practicable.
2. The word practicable is defined as: possible to practice or perform;
capable of being put into practice, done or accomplished. This
means that in the absence of special provisions, rules in ordinary
actions may be applied in special proceedings as much as possible
and where doing so would not pose an obstacle to said proceedings.
3. Provisions of the Rules of Court requiring a certification of non-forum
shopping for complaints and initiatory pleadings, a written
explanation for non-personal service and filing, and the payment of
filing fees for money claims against an estate would not in any way
obstruct probate proceedings, thus, they are applicable to special
proceedings such as the settlement of the estate of a deceased
person as in the present case.
4. However, the principal question is w/n the failure to attach a
certification against non-forum shopping would render dismissal.
5. The SC ruled that no it does not. The certification of non-forum
shopping is required only for complaints and other initiatory
pleadings. The RTC erred in ruling that a contingent money claim
against the estate of a decedent is an initiatory pleading. In the
present case, the whole probate proceeding was initiated upon
the filing of the petition for allowance of the decedent's will.
Under Sections 1 and 5, Rule 86 of the Rules of Court, after granting
claims against the decedent are mandated to file or notify the court
and the estate administrator of their respective money claims.
6. A money claim is only an incidental matter in the main action for the
settlement of the decedent's estate. Hence, petitioner's contingent
money claim, not being an initiatory pleading, does not require a
certification against non-forum shopping.
7. On the issue of filing fees, the Court ruled in Pascual v. Court of
Appeals, that the trial court has jurisdiction to act on a money claim
(attorney's fees) against an estate for services rendered by a lawyer
to the administratrix to assist her in fulfilling her duties to the estate
even without payment of separate docket fees because the filing
fees shall constitute a lien on the judgment pursuant to Section 2,
Rule 141, or the trial court may order the payment of such filing fees
within a reasonable time. After all, the trial court had already
assumed jurisdiction over the action for settlement of the estate.
Clearly, therefore, non-payment of filing fees for a money claim
against the estate is not one of the grounds for dismissing a money
claim against the estate.
8. With regard to the requirement of a written explanation, If only to
underscore the mandatory nature of this innovation to our set of
adjective rules requiring personal service whenever practicable,
Section 11 of Rule 13 then gives the court the discretion to
consider a pleading or paper as not filed if the other modes of
service or filing were not resorted to and no written explanation
was made as to why personal service was not done in the first
place. The exercise of discretion must, necessarily consider the
practicability of personal service, for Section 11 itself begins
with the clause whenever practicable.
9. The rule is so worded with the use of may, signifying
permissiveness, a violation thereof gives the court discretion
whether or not to consider the paper as not filed. While it is true
that procedural rules are necessary to secure an orderly and
speedy administration of justice, rigid application of Section 11,
Rule 13 may be relaxed in this case in the interest of substantial
justice.
10. In the present case, petitioner holds office in Salcedo Village, Makati
City, while counsel for respondent and the RTC which rendered the
assailed orders are both in Iligan City. The lower court should have
taken judicial notice of the great distance between said cities and
realized that it is indeed not practicable to serve and file the money
claim personally. Thus, following Medina v. Court of Appeals,[12] the
failure of petitioner to submit a written explanation why service has
not been done personally, may be considered as superfluous and
the RTC should have exercised its discretion under Section 11, Rule
13, not to dismiss the money claim of petitioner, in the interest of
substantial justice.