By Cherrie Anne E. Villahermosa
Variety News Staff

THE Supreme Court has denied Angel Malite’s heirs request for a writ of mandamus ordering the return of attorney fees paid to Antonio M. Atalig and Reynaldo O. Yana.
Supreme Court Associate Justice John A. Manglona, Justice Pro Tempore Philip Carbullido and Justice Pro Tempore Robert J. Torres Jr., in an order on Friday, denied the request of Rosa Malite, Lourdes M. Rangamar, Rombert M. Sinounou and Jimmy Sablan.
The heirs want Atalig and Yana to return the fees they recieved in a civil action to recover estate property.
Still, according to the justices, because the probate court abrogated its duties under the probate law and rules, they are reversing and remanding the matter to the probate court for a hearing on the propriety of the attorney fees that should be awarded in the civil proceeding.
The justices said they find the probate court erred in failing to conduct an independent review of the attorney fees awarded by the civil court.
The probate court also erred in failing to provide notice to and a hearing for the heirs regarding the attorney fee award, the justices added.
They reversed the civil court’s order and remanded the matter to the probate court so that an accounting and approval of the requested attorney fees may take place pursuant to the Rules of Probate Procedure.
The estate of Angel Malite entered probate in April 1997. The then-Marianas Public Land Authority later agreed to pay the estate $3,450,000 for a piece of land originally owned by Angel Malite.
The amount was offered as a settlement for the condemnation action on land taken by the Trust Territory administration.
On Dec. 3, 2004, before the money was disbursed, the Attorney General’s Office brought a separate civil action to enjoin the payment of $3,450,000 to the estate.
MPLA and the Estate of Angel Malite were named as defendants.
In response to the AGO’s request for an injunction, four of the estate’s 18 heirs signed a contingency fee agreement with attorney Atalig agreeing to pay him 33 percent of whatever amount he could secure from MPLA.
Atalig was also representing the estate’s administrator, Jesus C. Tudela, in the estate’s probate case.
Tudela did not sign the contingency agreement.
On Feb. 28, 2006, a settlement was reached between the AGO, MPLA’s successor, the Department of Public Lands, and the estate of Angel Malite.
Attorney Stephen J. Nutting, separately representing four of the estate’s heirs who are the petitioners in this case, also signed the settlement.
The settlement was accepted by the civil court on March 13, 2006 and a judgment order was entered.
On March 14, 2006, Atalig along with co-counsel Yana, filed a request in the civil court for attorney fees due in representing the administrator and “other signatories to the contingency fee agreement.”
A hearing on the matter was set for April 18, 2006 and no notice was given regarding the hearing or the request for attorney fees to the assistant attorney general who handled the injunction and the settlement agreement.
The assistant attorney general learned of the hearing and appeared in court and informed the court that she had not been served a notice and requested a continuance of the matter so that she could be noticed and given full time to respond.
The court granted her request, taking the matter off calendar and ordered Atalig to provide notice.
On May 12, 2006, without a hearing on the matter, the civil court entered an order approving Atalig and Yana’s 33 percent contingency fee.
The estate’s administrator filed a waiver of objection to the fees on May 18, 2006.
The assistant AG and the heirs were never served with the order granting attorney fees.
The heirs petitioned the probate court for a temporary retraining order requesting the probate court to disgorge the attorney fees and vacate the court’s order.
The probate court issued an order on June 2, 2006 determining the heirs had no standing before the civil court to challenge the attorney fee order since the attorney fees were granted in the civil action for an injunction and not in a probate case.
The administrator, the probate court added, was the only client of Atalig who waived any objection to the attorney fee order. Lastly, the court said, the heirs’ notice of appearance in the civil case did not vest them with standing.
The heirs on June 14, 2006, filed a petition in the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus requesting the justices to order the administrator and his attorneys to refund the attorney fees awarded by the civil court.