IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF CARMEN PADILLA VDA. DE BENGSON, IMCOMPETENT. CARMEN PADILLA VDA. DE BENGSON, PETITIONER AND APPELLEE, VS. PHILIPPINES NATIONAL BANK, GUARDIA…

As
the mother of a veteran who died in World War II, Carmen Padilla Vda.de
Bengson became entitled to certain accrued insurance benefits which
amounted to P10,733 as of July 1, 1957, and to a monthly death
compensation for the rest of her life, all extended by the United
States Veterans Administration. Upon inquiry which showed that the
beneficiary was incompetent, the Veterans Administration filed Special
Proceeding No. 586 in the Court of First Instance of La Union, where in
due course, an order was entered on August 8, 1957, adjudging Carmen
Padilla Vda. de Bengson to be an incompetent and appointing the
Philippine National Bank (PNB) as guardian of her estate comprising the
monies due from the said Veterans Administration. Letters of
guardianship were then issued in favor of the Philippine National Bank.

On
March 5, 1960, alleging that she had regained her competence, the ward,
by counsel, filed a petition asking for an order terminating the
guardianship, and for delivery to her of the residuary estate. Attached
to this petition was a medical certificate attesting that she was
mentally competent and possessed full knowledge of her environmental
surroundings. This was opposed by the Veterans Administration on the
ground that by reason of her advanced age (78), physical and mental
debility, she was still an incompetent within the meaning of Section 2,
Rule o3 of the Rules of Court, On March 30, 1960, the son of the ward,
Francisco Bengson, filed a “Manifestation” to the effect that he was
the personal guardian of the incompetent; that if appointed guardian of
her estate as well, he will comply with all the provisions of the Rules
of Court, will not ask any remuneration for his services, and will file
a nominal bond. He prayed to be appointed guardian of the ward’s estate
in place of the Philippine National Bank, and for the balance of her
estate to be withdrawn or transferred from the Philippine National Bank
main office to its branch at San Fernando, La Union, in his account as
guardian. On the same date, the lower court ordered Francisco Bengson
to be appointed guardian of the ward’s estate to substitute the
Philippine National Bank, upon filing a P1,000 bond with proper
sureties; the Philippine National Bank to transfer to its branch office
at San Fernando, La Union, whatever funds It has belonging to the ward,
upon Francisco Bengson’s filing the required bond and taking his oath.
As reasons for the removal of the Philippine National Bank and the
appointment of Bengson, the lower court observed that the itfard was
living with Francisco Bengson in the letter’s capacity as personal
guardian; that the appointment of Bengson in place of the Philippine
National Bank would save the compensation being paid that Bank; and
that the transfer to the Philippine National Bank branch at San
Fernando, La Union would be more convenient to all concerned for the
proper administration of the estate. The required bond was thereafter
filed and letters of guardianship issued to Francisco Bengson. A motion
to reconsider was denied by the order of May 11, 1960, which, however,
raised the amount of the bond to P13,000, based on a finding that the
cash balance of the estate then amounted to P11,464.34 plus the monthly
income estimated at P134, or P1,608 per annum. Hence, this joint appeal
by the Philippine National Bank and the Veterans Administration.

We
find this appeal meritorious. The grounds for which a guardian may be
removed are found in Section 2, Rule 98 of of the Rules.

“When a guardian becomes insane or otherwise
incapable of discharging his trust or insuitable therefor or has wasted
or mismanaged the estate, or failed for thirty days after it is due
suitable therefor, or has wasted or mismanaged return, the court
may, upon reasonable notice to the guardian, remove him, and compel him
to surrender the estate of the ward to the person found to be lawfully
entitled thereto, * * * ” (Italics supplied)

Since
the Rules enumerate the grounds for removal of a guardian, a guardian
cannot be legally removed from office except for the causes therein
mentioned (Alemany vs. Moreno, 5 Phil. 172; Moran, Comments
on the Rules of Court, Vol. 11) 1957 Ed., p. 515). This is also the
American law (39 C.J.S., p. 657). Accordingly, conflict of interest
(Ribaya vs. Ribaya, 74 Phil. 254; Gabriel vs.
Sotelo, 74 Phil. 25) has been held sufficient ground for removal,
premised on the logic that antagonistic interests would render a
guardian unsuitable for the trust. To the extent that a court uses its discretion in appraising whether a person is insuitable or incapable of discharging his trust,
that much it can be said that removal is discretionary. But the
discretion must be exercised within the law, and when the latter has
laid down the grounds for removal of a guardian, discretion is limited
to inquiring as to the existence of any of those grounds.

No
pretense is made in this case, and nothing in the record would
indicate, that there was any legal ground upon whittle removal of the
Philippine National Bank as guardian was founded. Neither in Francisco
Bengson’s manifestation nor in the orders of the lower court is it made
to appear that the Philippine National Bank had become incapable of
discharging its trust or was unsuitable therefor, or that it had
committed anything which the Rules includes as grounds for removal. On
the contrary, it appears incontestable that all throughout, the
Philippine National Bank has discharged its trust satisfactorily. That
it has received commissions allowed by law for its services is no
ground to remove it, especially since the Bank’s commission averages no
more than P100.00 a year and is offset by interest on the ward’s
deposit and the sum that the son would probably have to disburse in
bond premiums. Neither is it sufficient to base removal on the
unsubstantiated opinion that it would be more beneficial to the
interests of the ward and more convenient for the administration of the
estate. A guardian should not be removed except for the most cogent
reasons (39 C.J.S. 65); otherwise, the removal is unwarranted and
illegal.

As to the alleged inconvenience of the guardian of
the incompetent’s person having to come to Manila to obtain money for
the ward’s sustenance, the same can be obviated by merely requiring the
appellant Bank to keep part of the moneys in the San Fernando (La
Union) branch, without altering tike guardianship.

Wherefore,
the orders appealed from dated March 30, 1960 and May 11, 1960 are
reversed, with costs against the appellee Francisco Bengson.

Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Barrera, Paredes, Dizon and De Leon, JJ., concur.