This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2013-12-04 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Complainant alleged that respondent judge is liable for gross inefficiency for his failure to resolve the pending incident within the required period. According to complainant, respondent judge not only failed to resolve the subject motion on time, he likewise ignored the basic rules and jurisprudence in the appointment of special administrators in accordance with the Supreme Court's ruling in Co v. Rosario.[3] Thus, he maintained that respondent judge should also be held liable for gross ignorance of the law. | |||||
|
2010-07-05 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| A special administrator is an officer of the court who is subject to its supervision and control, expected to work for the best interest of the entire estate, with a view to its smooth administration and speedy settlement.[33] When appointed, he or she is not regarded as an agent or representative of the parties suggesting the appointment.[34] The principal object of the appointment of a temporary administrator is to preserve the estate until it can pass to the hands of a person fully authorized to administer it for the benefit of creditors and heirs, pursuant to Section 2 of Rule 80 of the Rules of Court.[35] | |||||