Jamero vs Melicor Case Digest GR 140929 ; May 26, 2005

Jamero vs Melicor Case Digest 

GR 140929 ; May 26, 2005

PRINCIPLE/S:

Special Proceedings

a) Appointment of Special Administrator

Appointment of a special administrator is interlocutory, discretionary on the part of the RTC and non-appealable.

b) Remedy of aggrieved party in the appointment of a Special Administrator

Petition for certiorari

Ground:  Grave abuse of discretion or lack of or in excess of jurisdiction

FACTS: Petitioner filed a Special Proceedings for the Administration and Settlement of the Estate of his deceased mother, Consuelo Jamero, with the RTC. Private respondent Ernesto Jamero, a brother of petitioner, opposed the latter’s petition for appointment as regular administrator of the estate. Upon motion of private respondent Ernesto and over the objections of petitioner, the respondent court, appointed Atty. Bautista as special administrator pending the appointment of a regular administrator. Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with the CA which was denied. Hence, this present petition for review on certiorari.

ISSUE/S:

1) WON the CA erred in dismissing CA-G.R. SP No. 53020 for having been filed out of time;

2) WON appointment of special administrator is discretionary to the appointing court and that being an interlocutory order, the same is not appealable nor subject to certiorari;

3) WON the appointment of a special administrator is in accordance with law and jurisprudence.

  

HELD:

1) YES. A.M. Circular No. 00-2-03-SC further amending Section 4, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court should be given retroactive effect. Amendment under A.M. No. 00-2-03-SC is procedural or remedial in character. It does not create new or remove vested rights but only operates in furtherance of the remedy or confirmation of rights already existing. . It is settled that procedural laws do not come within the legal conception of a retroactive law, or the general rule against retroactive operation of statutes. They may be given retroactive effect to actions pending and undetermined at the time of their passage and this will not violate any right of a person who may feel that he is adversely affected, insomuch as there is no vested rights in rules of procedure. Thus, the petition for certiorari filed by petitioner with the CA should now be considered as having been filed within the reglementary period provided under said circular.

2) YES. Appointment of a special administrator is interlocutory, discretionary on the part of the RTC and non-appealable. However, it may be subject of certiorari if it can be shown that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion or lack of or in excess of jurisdiction.

3) YES. Appointment of a special administrator is interlocutory, discretionary on the part of the RTC