View full case

JUDGE ANTONIO C. SUMALJAG v. SPS. DIOSDIDIT

FACTS:

The case involves a petition for review on certiorari filed by Judge Antonio C. Sumaljag. The petition assails the decision of the Court of Appeals (CA), which dismissed Judge Sumaljag's petition for certiorari. The said petition for certiorari was filed by Judge Sumaljag in relation to an interlocutory matter in Civil Cases B-1239 and B-1281. These cases were filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) by Josefa D. Maglasang and Menendez Maglasang Literato, respectively. The cases were related to the nullity of a deed of sale of real property. The respondent spouses, Diosdidit and Menendez Literato, denied the falsification of the deed of sale and impleaded Judge Sumaljag and Josefa in their counterclaim. During the pendency of the cases, Josefa passed away. As Josefa's common counsel, Judge Sumaljag asked the RTC for an extended period to file a formal notice of death and substitution of party. The RTC granted the motion but denied Judge Sumaljag's motion for substitution. Instead, the RTC ordered the appearance of Josefa's sister as her representative. Judge Sumaljag filed a petition for certiorari with the CA, but it was later dismissed. Now, the present petition for review seeks to overturn the CA's decision by claiming various errors in dismissing the petition.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not Civil Case Nos. B-1239 and B-1281 are actions that survive the death of Josefa.

  2. Whether or not the counsel of Josefa properly complied with the duty under Section 16, Rule 3 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure to inform the court of the death and provide the name and address of the legal representative of the deceased.

  3. Whether or not the suggested substitute of the counsel of the deceased should be allowed.

RULING:

  1. Yes, Civil Case Nos. B-1239 and B-1281 are actions that survive the death of Josefa.

  2. No, the counsel of Josefa did not properly comply with the duty under Section 16, Rule 3 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure to inform the court of the death and provide the name and address of the legal representative of the deceased.

  3. The suggested substitute of the counsel of the deceased should not be allowed. The petitioner is not one of those allowed by the Rules to be a substitute. Furthermore, the suggested substitution would effectively negate the protection intended by the Rules for all parties involved. Counsel has the authority to manifest changes in interest during the course of litigation, but this can only happen while the client-transferor is still alive and while the manifesting counsel is still authorized to represent the client-transferor. After the death of the client, the lawyer-client relationship is terminated and the counsel loses the authority to speak for and bind the deceased client. Lastly, the documents attached to the records reveal discrepancies in the subject matter of the quitclaim allegedly executed by the deceased and the deed of sale executed in favor of the petitioner, raising questions about the transactions in this case.

  4. The Court of Appeals (CA) correctly determined that the legal representatives of the deceased should be her surviving sisters and the children of her deceased sister. The heirs of the deceased may be allowed to be substituted for the deceased without requiring the appointment of an executor or administrator. In this case, since the deceased was single and left no will, her surviving sisters and the children of her deceased sister should be her legal representatives. One of the sisters, who is also one of the adverse parties, should be excluded as a legal representative.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The rule on substitution in case of death of a party is governed by Section 16, Rule 3 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.

  • The duty of counsel under Section 16, Rule 3 is to inform the court within thirty (30) days after the death of his client of the fact of death, and to give the name and address of the deceased's legal representative or representatives.

  • The "legal representatives" mentioned in Section 16, Rule 3 refer to those authorized by law - the administrator, executor, or guardian who, under the rule on settlement of estate of deceased persons, is constituted to take over the estate of the deceased.

  • The heirs of the deceased may be allowed to be substituted for the deceased without requiring the appointment of an executor or administrator.

  • Section 16, Rule 3 of the 1997 Rules of Court allows the heirs of a deceased person to be substituted for the deceased as legal representatives, without requiring the appointment of an executor or administrator.

  • The purpose of the Rule is to protect the interests of all parties involved, including the deceased and her estate.

  • Counsel has the authority to manifest changes in interest during the litigation process, but only while the client-transferor is alive and while the counsel is authorized to represent the client-transferor.

  • After the death of the client, the lawyer-client relationship is terminated, and the counsel loses the authority to speak for and bind the deceased client.

  • Discrepancies in the subject matter of the transactions related to the case may raise questions about the validity and integrity of the transactions.