104 SCRA 534

(Vda. De Haberer v. Court of Appeals)

This case is a petition for review by way of appeal from the resolution of
Respondent Court of Appeals, dismissing the appeal of the late Florentino Nuguid Vda.
De Haberer.

Petitioner: The Heirs of the late Florentina Nuguid Vda. De Haberer

Respondents: Court of Appeals, Federico Martinez, et al.

FACTS:
Florentina Nuguid Vda. De Haberer is the duly registered owner of a parcel of
land. In 1964 and 1965, she filed (11) complaints for the recovery of possession of lot in
Rizal issued by the registry of deeds under her name. The allegation was that private
respondents had entered the land and built their houses therein with authority from her.
The lower court rendered a consolidated decision dated May 26, 1971, dismissing
all the complaints. Upon motion of Florentina, the cases were reopened and retried on
grounds of newly discovered evidence. But on September 15, 1972 the lower court
revived its decision of May 26, 1971. The decision was then appealed to the Court of
Appeals. Series of motions from both parties were submitted.
In May 26, 1975 Florentina Nuguid Vda. De Haberer died. A motion was
submitted to respondent court in June 28, 1975 giving notice of the death of Vda de.
Haberer through her counsels and thereby asking for the suspension of the running of the
period within which to file the appellant’s brief, pending on the appointment of an
executor. This intervening event has caused in the further delay of the case in that the
appellant as a party to the case must be substituted as required by Section 17, Rule 3 of
the Rules of Court. Motions pursuant to this rule were done by counsels of Florentina, but
respondent court remained silent and, instead, contended that the appeal be dismissed for
failure to prosecute in that the lawyers of the deceased had no longer any legal standing
for the reason that their client-attorney relationship had been terminated upon her death.
The appeal was eventually dismissed, and motion for reconsideration was also turned
down.

ISSUE
Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the appeal.

HELD
Supreme Court held that Respondent Court erred in denying the motion for
reconsideration on the part of the appellant, and eventually dismissed the appeal. In the
absence of a retainer from the heirs or authorized representative of his deceased client,
the attorney would thereafter have no further power or authority to appear or to take any
further action in the case.
Section 17, Rule 3 sets the rule on substitution of parties in case of death of any of
the parties. In this Rule,
 (1) it is the court that is called upon, after notice of party’s death and the
claim is not thereby extinguished, to order upon proper notice the legal
representative of the deceased to appear within a period of 30 days or
such time as the court may grant;
(2) The claim is not thereby extinguished.
More under Rule 3, the Respondent Court should have set a period for the
substitution of the deceased party with her legal representative or heirs, which the court is
called upon to order the opposing party to procure the appointment of a legal
representative of the deceased at the cost of the deceased estate, and such representative
shall then immediately appear for and on behalf of the interest of the deceased.
So here, Respondent Court gravely erred in not following the rule and requiring
the appearance of the legal representative of the deceased, but instead dismissed the
appeal who yet had to be substituted in the pending appeal.