Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 14 views

    Lacson Vs Reyes

    Uploaded by

    Mark Gabriel B. Maranga
    The document discusses a case where a lawyer who was also the executor of a will tried to claim attorney's fees from the estate. The court ruled that an executor who is also a lawyer cannot claim attorney's fees from the estate, only compensation. The lawyer was entitled to attorney's fees from the heirs, but the court found the claimed amount excessive and reduced it. The ruling is related to provisions allowing deductions from an estate for judicial expenses.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Lacson Vs Reyes

    Uploaded by

    Mark Gabriel B. Maranga
    14 views2 pages
    The document discusses a case where a lawyer who was also the executor of a will tried to claim attorney's fees from the estate. The court ruled that an executor who is also a lawyer cannot claim attorney's fees from the estate, only compensation. The lawyer was entitled to attorney's fees from the heirs, but the court found the claimed amount excessive and reduced it. The ruling is related to provisions allowing deductions from an estate for judicial expenses.

    Original Title

    Lacson vs Reyes

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document discusses a case where a lawyer who was also the executor of a will tried to claim attorney's fees from the estate. The court ruled that an executor who is also a lawyer cannot claim attorney's fees from the estate, only compensation. The lawyer was entitled to attorney's fees from the heirs, but the court found the claimed amount excessive and reduced it. The ruling is related to provisions allowing deductions from an estate for judicial expenses.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    14 views2 pages

    Lacson Vs Reyes

    Uploaded by

    Mark Gabriel B. Maranga
    The document discusses a case where a lawyer who was also the executor of a will tried to claim attorney's fees from the estate. The court ruled that an executor who is also a lawyer cannot claim attorney's fees from the estate, only compensation. The lawyer was entitled to attorney's fees from the heirs, but the court found the claimed amount excessive and reduced it. The ruling is related to provisions allowing deductions from an estate for judicial expenses.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    LACSON vs.

    REYES 128 SCRA 729

    G.R. No. 86250 February 26, 1990

    ALBERTO F. LACSON, EDITHA F. LACSON, ROMEO F. LACSON and ZENA F. VELASCO, petitioners, 


    vs.
    HON. LUIS R. REYES, in his capacity as presiding judge of Branch 22 of the Regional Trial Court of
    Cavite, Branch 22, and/or Multiple Sala, Imus, Cavite, and EPHRAIM J. SERQUINA, respondents.

    FACTS: In 1987, private respondent Atty. Ephraim Serquina petitioned the respondent court for
    the probate of the last will and testament of Carmelita Farlin, decedent of petitioners-heirs. He
    also petitioned the court in his capacity as counsel for the heirs and as executor under the will.
    Said will was allowed by the respondent court.
    In 1988, Atty. Serquina filed a motion for attorney’s fees against the petitioners and
    alleged that they agreed to pay him the sum of P 65,000 for legal services rendered. The
    respondent court rendered judgment against petitioners, ordering them to pay their lawyer P
    65,000 as true and reasonable attorney’s fees which shall be a lien on the subject properties
    considering the extent of the legal services rendered and the value of the properties gained by
    the heirs out of said services.

    ISSUE: Whether the respondent court gravely abused its discretion in awarding attorney’s fees
    contrary to the provisions of the Rules of Court.

    HELD: The answer is in the affirmative. (To better understand the ruling of the court, the
    difference between the executor or administrator's compensation and attorney's fees shall be
    noted. Likewise to be noted is the difference between the executor or administrator who is not
    a lawyer and an executor or administrator who is himself the lawyer as in this case.)
    The court pointed out that an attorney who is concurrently an executor of a will is
    barred from recovering attorney's fees from the estate. Under Rule 85 sec 7 of the ROC, when
    the executor or administrator is an attorney, he shall not charge against the estate any
    professional fees for legal services rendered by him. Therefore, it is clear that an executor or
    administrator who is an attorney may be allowed to recover compensation but never attorney's
    fees from the estate. Accordingly, the respondent judge gravely abused his discretion when he
    ordered the sum of P 65,000 to operate as lien on the subject properties.
    The attorney's fees may not be charged against the estate, but rather, against the heirs.
    The clients or heirs shall be liable for the attorney's fees. In this connection, attorney's fees are
    in the nature of actual damages, which must be duly proved and are subject to certain
    conditions and the discretion of the court. The court is not persuaded that Atty. Serquina is
    entitled to the sum claimed by him (P 68,000) or that awarded by the lower court (P 65,000)
    since he did not render any extraordinary service but merely rendered services routinely. It is
    the opinion of the court that he should be entitled to P 15,000 for attorney's fees. The records
    revealed that he has already been paid P 6,000. Hence, the court held that the heirs, herein
    petitioners, are liable for P 9,000 more. Such amount shall not be recovered from the estate.
    NOTE: Correlate the ruling in this case with Sec 86 A-1-b, NIRC
    Sec 86 - Computation of the net estate of a citizen or a resident
    A - Deductions allowed to the estate of a citizen or a resident
    1 - Expenses, losses, indebtedness, and taxes - such amounts –
    b - For judicial expenses of the testamentary or intestate proceedings

    Sec 86 A-1-b, NIRC - Judicial expenses of the testamentary or intestate proceedings


    a. Fees of the executor or administrator
    b. Attorney's fees
    c. Accountant's fees
    d. Court fees
    e. Salaries of employees; and
    f. All other expenses related to the administration of the estate, including those that are incurred extra-
    judicially (CIR v CA and Pajonar, GR No. 123206)

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy