GR 175910; (July, 2009) (Digest)
G.R. No. 175910 ; July 30, 2009
ATTY. ROGELIO E. SARSABA, Petitioner, vs. FE VDA. DE TE, represented by her Attorney-in-Fact, FAUSTINO CASTAÑEDA, Respondents.
FACTS
The case originated from a labor dispute where Patricio Sereno obtained a judgment against Teodoro Gasing. To satisfy the award, Sheriff Fulgencio Lavarez, accompanied by Sereno and his counsel, Atty. Rogelio Sarsaba, levied upon a truck in Gasing’s possession. The truck was subsequently sold at public auction to Sereno. Respondent Fe Vda. de Te, represented by her attorney-in-fact Faustino Castañeda, filed a complaint for recovery of the motor vehicle against Sarsaba, Sereno, Lavarez, and the NLRC. She claimed ownership of the truck, asserting it was merely rented to Gasing, and that the levy was improper as she was not a party to the labor case.
During the pendency of the civil case, respondent Fe Vda. de Te passed away. Petitioner Sarsaba filed an Omnibus Motion to Dismiss, arguing the court lost jurisdiction due to the failure to serve summons on defendant Sereno and that the attorney-in-fact lost his authority to represent the deceased respondent. The Regional Trial Court denied the motion, prompting this petition.
ISSUE
The primary issues are whether the trial court lost jurisdiction over the case due to the failure to serve summons upon a co-defendant, and whether the death of the plaintiff extinguished the authority of her attorney-in-fact to continue the suit.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition. On the jurisdictional issue, the Court ruled that failure to serve summons on one defendant does not automatically deprive the court of jurisdiction over the other defendants who have voluntarily submitted to its authority by filing pleadings. Since Sarsaba, Lavarez, and the NLRC had already filed their respective motions and answers, they were deemed to have voluntarily appeared, curing any defect in service as to Sereno.
Regarding the death of the plaintiff, the Court held that the authority of the attorney-in-fact, Faustino Castañeda, was extinguished upon the death of his principal, Fe Vda. de Te, pursuant to Article 1919(3) of the Civil Code. However, this termination does not necessitate the dismissal of the action. The claim, being one for recovery of property, survives the death of the plaintiff. The rules require substitution by the deceased party’s legal representatives. The duty to inform the court of the death and to secure substitution falls upon the counsel of record for the deceased, not upon the opposing party. The case should be remanded to the trial court to allow for the proper substitution of the deceased plaintiff by her legal heirs or representative. The trial court’s orders were affirmed with the modification to effect the substitution.