THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 160671. April 30, 2008.]

LUIS L. CO , petitioner, vs . HON. RICARDO R. ROSARIO, in his capacity

as the Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 66,
Makati City, ELIZABETH RACHEL CO, ASTRID MELODY CO-LIM,
GENEVIEVE CO-CHUN, CAROL CO, KEVIN CO, EDWARD CO and the
ESTATE OF LIM SEE TE , respondents.

DECISION

NACHURA , J : p

For the resolution of the Court is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45
of the Rules of Court questioning the October 28, 2003 Decision 1 of the Court of
Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 72055. TDAHCS

The relevant facts and proceedings follow.

On March 4, 1998, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) OF Makati City, Branch 66, in Sp.
Proc. No. M-4615, appointed petitioner and Vicente O. Yu, Sr. as the special
administrators of the estate of the petitioner's father, Co Bun Chun. 2 However, on
motion of the other heirs, the trial court set aside petitioner's appointment as special
co-administrator. 3 Petitioner consequently, nominated his son, Alvin Milton Co (Alvin,
for brevity), for appointment as co-administrator of the estate. 4 On August 31, 1998,
the RTC appointed Alvin as special co-administrator. 5
Almost four years thereafter, the RTC, acting on a motion 6 led by one of the
heirs, issued its January 22, 2002 Order 7 revoking and setting aside the appointment
of Alvin. The trial court reasoned that Alvin had become unsuitable to discharge the
trust given to him as special co-administrator because his capacity, ability or
competence to perform the functions of co-administrator had been beclouded by the
ling of several criminal cases against him, which, even if there was no conviction yet,
had provided the heirs ample reason to doubt his tness to handle the subject estate
with utmost fidelity, trust and confidence. DCcAIS

Aggrieved, petitioner moved for the reconsideration of the said Order, but this
was denied in the RTC Order 8 of May 14, 2002.
Subsequently, petitioner brought the matter to the CA on petition for certiorari
under Rule 65. In the aforesaid challenged October 28, 2003 Decision, 9 the appellate
court a rmed the revocation of the appointment and dismissed the petition. Thus, the
instant petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.
The petition is bereft of merit. IcEACH

We a rm the appellate court's ruling that the trial court did not act with grave
abuse of discretion in revoking Alvin's appointment as special co-administrator. Settled
is the rule that the selection or removal of special administrators is not governed by the
rules regarding the selection or removal of regular administrators. 1 0 Courts may
appoint or remove special administrators based on grounds other than those
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2017 cdasiaonline.com
 enumerated in the Rules, at their discretion. 1 1 As long as the said discretion is
exercised without grave abuse, higher courts will not interfere with it. 1 2 This, however,
is no authority for the judge to become partial, or to make his personal likes and
dislikes prevail over, or his passions to rule, his judgment. The exercise of such
discretion must be based on reason, equity, justice and legal principles. 1 3
Thus, even if a special administrator had already been appointed, once the court
nds the appointee no longer entitled to its con dence, it is justi ed in withdrawing the
appointment and giving no valid effect thereto. 1 4 The special administrator is an
o cer of the court who is subject to its supervision and control and who is expected to
work for the best interest of the entire estate, especially with respect to its smooth
administration and earliest settlement. 1 5
In this case, we nd that the trial court's judgment on the issue of Alvin's removal
as special co-administrator is grounded on reason, equity, justice and legal principle. It
is not characterized by patent and gross capriciousness, pure whim and abuse,
arbitrariness or despotism, as to be correctible by the writ of certiorari. 1 6 In fact, the
appellate court correctly observed that:
In ruling to revoke the appointment of Alvin Milton Co, the lower court
took into consideration the duciary nature of the o ce of a special
administrator which demands a high degree of trust and con dence in the
person to be appointed. The court a quo observed that, burdened with the
criminal charges of falsi cation of commercial documents leveled against him
(sic), and the corresponding profound duty to defend himself in these
proceedings, Alvin Milton Co's ability and quali cation to act as special co-
administrator of the estate of the decedent are beclouded, and the recall of his
appointment is only proper under the attendant circumstances. Such reasoning
by the court a quo nds basis in actual logic and probability. Without
condemning the accused man (sic) as guilty before he is found such by the
appropriate tribunal, the court merely declared that it is more consistent with the
demands of justice and orderly processes that the petitioner's son, who is
already bidden to defend himself against criminal charges for falsi cation in
other fora be relieved of his duties and functions as special administrator, to
avoid conflicts and possible abuse. HCDAac

The Court nds no grave abuse of discretion attending such ruling, as it

was reached based on the court a quo's own fair assessment of the
circumstances attending the case below, and the applicable laws. 1 7
As a nal note, the Court observes that this prolonged litigation on the simple
issue of the removal of a special co-administrator could have been avoided if the trial
court promptly appointed a regular administrator.
We, therefore, direct the trial court to proceed with the appointment of a regular
administrator as soon as practicable.
WHEREFORE, the petition for review on certiorari is hereby DENIED. The October
28, 2003 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 72055 is AFFIRMED. CSaITD

SO ORDERED.
Ynares-Santiago, Austria-Martinez, Chico-Nazario and Reyes, JJ., concur.
Footnotes

1. Penned by Associate Justice Rodrigo V. Cosico, with Associate Justices Mariano C. Del
Castillo and Rosalinda Asuncion-Vicente, concurring; rollo, pp. 20-26. cSaCDT

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2017 cdasiaonline.com

 2. Id. at 41-42.
3. Id. at 43-45.
4. Id. at 46-48.
5. Id. at 49-50.
6. Captioned as Motion to Disqualify Alvin Milton S. Co as Special Administrator; rollo, pp.
51-54.

7. Rollo, pp. 58-60.

8. Id. at 68.
9. Supra note 1.
10. Heirs of Belinda Dahlia A. Castillo v. Lacuata-Gabriel, G.R. No. 162934, November 11,
2005, 474 SCRA 747, 760, citing Roxas v. Pecson, 82 Phil. 407, 410 (1948); see Rivera v.
Hon. Santos, 124 Phil 1557, 1561 (1966), in which the Court ruled that the selection of a
special administrator is left to the sound discretion of the court, and that the need to rst
pass upon and resolve the issues of tness or un tness as would be proper in the case
of a regular administrator, does not obtain; see also Alcasid v. Samson, 102 Phil. 735,
737 (1957), in which the Court declared that the appointment and removal of a special
administrator are interlocutory proceedings incidental to the main case and lie in the
sound discretion of the court. ACIDSc

11. Regalado, Remedial Law Compendium, Sixth Revised Edition, Vol. 2, p. 45.
12. See Esler v. Tad-y, G.R. No. L-20902, October 9, 1923.
13. Fule v. Court of Appeals, 165 Phil. 785, 800 (1976).
14. Herrera, Remedial Law, 1996 Edition, Vol. III-A, p. 93, citing Cobarrubias v. Dizon, 76
Phil. 209 (1946).

15. Heirs of Belinda Dahlia A. Castillo v. Lacuata-Gabriel, supra note 10, at 757.
16. See Machica v. Roosevelt Services Center, Inc. , G.R. No. 168664, May 4, 2006, 489
SCRA 534, 547.

17. Rollo, p. 25. ITCHSa

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2017 cdasiaonline.com