Case Summary (G.R. No. L-30573)
Background of the Case
The case pertains to an action filed by Belen Cruz-Regoso against her husband, Maximo Regoso, for judicial partition of conjugal properties, accounting of income, and damages. The trial court rendered its judgment on November 14, 1988, declaring the nature of the properties as paraphernal and conjugal, ordering an accounting of income, and awarding moral, exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees.
Death of Defendant and Procedural Developments
Maximo Regoso died on January 17, 1985, after submission of the case but before judgment was rendered. The trial court was not informed of his death before promulgating the decision. Regoso’s counsel, Attorney Adriano Javier, Sr., filed a notice of appeal on November 29, 1988, which the trial court approved. The appeal was docketed before the Court of Appeals.
Court of Appeals Resolution and Grounds for Dismissal
The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal by resolution dated October 6, 1989, holding that the authority of the lawyer to represent his client terminates immediately upon the client’s death, absent certain exceptions such as a contractual agreement extending representation to judgment or contingent fees. Since none applied, the lawyer’s filing of the notice of appeal after the death of Maximo Regoso was null and void; thus, the appeal was dismissed.
Legal Obligations of Counsel Upon Death of Client
Under Sections 16 and 17, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court, an attorney must promptly inform the court of the death, incapacity, or incompetency of his client and provide the names and residences of the executor, administrator, or legal representative. Following such notice, the court shall order the legal representative to be substituted within a specified period. If no substitution occurs, the court may direct the opposing party to procure appointment of such representative.
Failure to Inform Court and Consequences
In this case, Regoso’s counsel failed to notify the trial court of the client’s death and did not submit a motion for substitution of the legal representative. Consequently, the trial court was not aware of the death and proceeded to render judgment. This procedural lapse was solely attributable to Attorney Javier’s neglect.
Effect of Death on the Action for Partition
The death of Maximo Regoso did not extinguish the action for partition, as such an action survives the death of a party. The judgment rendered after the death remains valid and binding on the deceased’s legal representatives or successors-in-interest, particularly concerning their interest in the property.
Validity of Judgment and Appeal after Death of Party
The appellate court correctly dismissed the appeal filed by Attorney Javier posthumously, as his authority to represent the client expired upon the latter’s death. The notice of appeal was an unauthorized and invalid pleading. However, the trial court’s judgment itself stands valid and enforceable against the successors-in-interest of the deceased party.
Lega
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. L-30573)
Facts of the Case
- The case involved an action for judicial partition of property with accounting and damages, initiated by Belen Cruz-Regoso against her husband, Maximo Regoso, filed in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch XV of Malolos, Bulacan.
- The trial court rendered a decision on November 14, 1988, awarding Belen Cruz-Regoso the declaration that certain properties were paraphernal or conjugal, ordering accounting of income derived from said properties, and granting moral damages, exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees in her favor.
- Maximo Regoso died on January 17, 1985, after the case had been submitted for decision but before judgment was rendered.
- Regoso’s heirs did not substitute him as defendants during the trial because the court was not informed of his death.
- On November 29, 1988, Regoso’s former counsel, Attorney Adriano Javier, Sr., filed a notice of appeal, which the RTC approved and docketed in the Court of Appeals (CA) as CA-G.R. No. 20183.
- Belen Cruz-Regoso moved to dismiss the appeal, arguing the counsel’s authority to appeal terminated on the death of the client, rendering the notice invalid.
- The CA dismissed the appeal, holding that the lawyer-client relationship ended upon Regoso’s death, and the appeal was invalid.
- The heirs' motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting this petition for review.
Issues Presented
- Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the appeal filed by the deceased defendant’s counsel.
- Whether the judgment rendered after the death of the defendant was null and void for lack of substitution or notification of death.
Legal Principles and Rulings
- Termination of Attorney-Client Relationship by Death: A lawyer’s authority to represent a client extinguishes upon the death of the client, with exceptions only when there is a contract extending services beyond judgment, contingent fees, or the lawyer’s appearance is coupled with an interest. None of these exceptions were present here.
- Duty to Inform Court of Client’s Death (Sec. 16, Rule 3, Rules of Court): The attorney must promptly inform the court of a party’s death and provide the names and residences of the executor, administrator, or lega