HEIRS OF MAXIMO REGOSO, petitioners, vs. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS and BELEN CRUZ REGOSO, respondents.
FACTS
Belen Cruz-Regoso filed an action for judicial partition of property with accounting and damages against her husband, Maximo Regoso, in the Regional Trial Court of Malolos, Bulacan. The trial court rendered a decision on November 14, 1988, declaring certain properties as paraphernal or conjugal, ordering an accounting, and awarding damages and attorney’s fees to the plaintiff. Maximo Regoso died on January 17, 1985, after the case was submitted for decision but before the decision was promulgated. The trial court was not informed of his death. Regoso’s counsel, Atty. Adriano Javier, Sr., filed a notice of appeal on November 29, 1988. Belen Cruz-Regoso moved to dismiss the appeal in the Court of Appeals, arguing that the counsel’s authority terminated upon his client’s death, making the notice of appeal invalid. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal on October 6, 1989, and denied the motion for reconsideration filed by the heirs’ new counsel. The heirs of Maximo Regoso then filed the present petition, alleging the appellate court erred in dismissing the appeal and in not declaring the trial court’s judgment null and void.
ISSUE
1. Whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the appeal filed by the deceased defendant’s counsel.
2. Whether the judgment rendered by the trial court after the death of the defendant is null and void.
RULING
1. Yes, the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the appeal. Upon the death of Maximo Regoso, the lawyer-client relationship with Atty. Javier was terminated, and his authority to represent the client automatically ceased. None of the exceptions to this rule (e.g., a contract for services up to judgment, contingent fee, or appearance coupled with an interest) were present. Therefore, the notice of appeal filed by Atty. Javier after his client’s death was an unauthorized pleading and without legal effect.
2. No, the trial court’s judgment is not null and void. The action for partition of conjugal assets is an action that survives the death of a party. The trial court was not informed of the defendant’s death, as required by Sections 16 and 17, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court, which impose a duty on the attorney for the deceased to inform the court. The fault or negligence lay solely with the defendant’s counsel. The trial court’s judgment, rendered without knowledge of the death, is valid and binding upon the defendant’s legal representatives or successors-in-interest with respect to the property subject of the action, pursuant to Section 49(b), Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. The petition for review was denied.
