Today is Thursday, December 03, 2015

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC

N,

nying a petition for the modification of its order of 5 December 1955 on the ground that it had already been affirmed by the Supreme

according to a compromise made by the parties, had adjudged inter alia

cember 31, 1955, and the measure of his fees as agreed upon between him and Attys. Lichauco and Brady shall be that which this C

nt which reached the Supreme Court docketed as G.R. No. L-6182 the sum of Fifteen Thousand (Pl5,000.00) Pesos.

956 under Rule 38. He also sought a ruling (1) reducing the fees of the trustee so as to place them on a par with the rates allegedly co
n overpaid, and that the excess be ordered credited to the trust estate in the amount of P51,000.00.

start, the denial was upheld by this Court on appeal (G.R. No. L-11788, 16 May 1950).

an filed in that court, on 4 November 1956, a motion seeking the paragraphs 3 and 4 (jam quot.) of the original order of 5 December 1

ys' fees, and that he may charge only such fees as are now being charged by regular trust Companies.

and approved by this Honorable Court, without prejudice to the parties adducing other evidence to prove their case not covered by th

had expressly authorized the trustee to collect only "honorarios razonables", which should be on a par with what is usually charged b
ettler the averred overpayment should be charged against his fees as trustee..

reiteration of the views expressed by the appellant-guardian in his petition for relief, denied on 19 October 1956, and then in process
11 September 1958, that his unacted motion of 23 November 1956 be finally resolved. After a reply from the trustee, the Court a quo

ourt that notwithstanding the lapse of considerable time his motion dated November 23, 1956 has not been resolved. In this connectio
rney for the judicial guardian, in view of which the Court considered it unnecessary to resolve said motion pending decision of the pe

er of this Court of December 5, 1955 stands in full force and effect.

tion is hereby DENIED.

e same were approved by the court below in its order of 5 December 1955, and virtually confirmed by this Court in its decision in G.R.

fees of the trustee, then the petition was correctly denied, it being premature. The time to determine the reasonableness of the future
e circumstances, such as "(1) the character and powers of the trusteeship; (2) the risk and responsibility; (3) time; and (4) labor and s
exceed that charged by trust companies, unless equality of circumstances is proved. Moreover, it is difficult to see how trust companie

the trust estate, has also been foreclosed by the terms of the compromise set forth in the order of 5 December 1955, repeatedly men

is merely a subtle attempt to undermine the conclusiveness and binding effect of the final order of the court below allowing said fees
s to any claim or issue that could have been raised prior to the adjudication.

J., concur.