G.R. No. L-25350 October 4, 1988 WILLIAM A. CHITTICK, petitioner, vs. HONORA L! CO"RT O# A$$!AL% &'( LA"R!NC! #. )!

$RI)A $ATRICIA CHITTICK, LAN!, WILLIAM A. CHITTICK, *R., )AGMAR CHITTICK GIL)!R%L!!+! &'( MAR, CHITTICK L,MAN, &- &..e/e( -0b-t1t0te( 2&rt1e- 3or M"RI!L M. CHITTICK or1/1'&. 2&rt4 2.&1't133, respondents. Gonzalo W. Gonzales & Associates for petitioner. David Guevarra for respondent Laurence F. de Prida.

I)IN, J.: This is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision 5 of respondent Court of Appeals promulgated on July 31, 196 in CA!".#. $o. 313%&!#, affirming in all respect the decision 55 of the Court of 'irst (nstance of )anila, *ranch (( in Civil Case $o. 6+, entitled Muriel M. Chittick vs. William A. Chittick. The dispositive portion of the decision which was affirmed -y respondent Court, reads as follows. (n view of the foregoing, /udgment is here-y rendered in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant -y way of support in arrears for the sum of 0%1,1+ .+% or its present e1uivalent in dollar at the option of the plaintiff, with interest at the legal rate from January 1%, 19 12 and under the second cause of action for the sum of 09,,,,.,, with interest at the rate of 63 from April %9, 19+,, plus attorney4s fees in the amount of 09,,.,,, and the costs of the suit. 5 .A. p. !!"6 The facts of the case, ta7en from the decision of the trial court is as follows. The plaintiff and the defendant, -oth American citi8ens, were married in 9ashington, :.;.A. on 'e-ruary 1%, 19%3. They came to the 0hilippines in 19%+ and made the City of )anila their permanent residence. 'our children were -orn of the marriage, namely, 0atricia, who was -orn, on ;eptem-er 1%, 19%+2 9illiam, Jr., on January <, 19%62 =agmar, on >cto-er 6, 1931, and )ary, on January 1%, 1933. According to the defendant, due to plaintiffs infidelity, their marital relation -ecame strained and they entered into an agreement of separation, ?@hi-it A, on )ay <, 193&. The document, ?@hi-it A, was drawn -y Atty. *en/amin ;. >hmic7, an American lawyer, and was duly ac7nowledged -efore a notary pu-lic. The pertinent stipulations which are the -ases of plaintiffs two causes of action are found in paragraphs % and 3, and read as follows. %. The hus-and agrees that he will pay or cause to -e paid to said wife monthly the sum of '(A? B:$=#?= '('TC 0?;>; 50 ,.,,6, 0hilippine Currency, or its present e1uivalent in :nited ;tates Currency, at the election of the wife, for the care,

maintainance and support of the said wife and the said minor children. ;aid payment shall continue until such time as the youngest of said minor children arrives at the age of eighteen 51<6 years, provided however, that the said wife in the meantime does not remarry. ;hould such marriage ta7e place, it is understood and agreed that payments aforesaid shall -e reduced -y twenty percent 5%,36. 3. (t is mutually agreed that the community or con/ugal assets of the parties, consisting of share of stoc7 in various corporations, together with cash, have a net reali8a-le value of 0%%, ,,.,, which the hus-and agrees to divide e1ually with the wife and deliver same to her whenever the said wife secures a final decree of divorce as is contemplated -y her it -eing understood that the hus-and, at his option, may deliver to the wife the sum of 011,% ,.,, in full and complete discharge. The plaintiff thereafter went to $evada, :.;.A., and alleging desertion on the part of her hus-and, the defendant herein, the plaintiff o-tained a divorce, ?@hi-it *, on August 3,, 193&. 0laintiff stayed in the :nited ;tates until =ecem-er 193&, after which she returned to the 0hilippines. The defendant complied faithfully with the payment of the monthly support of 0 ,.,, until the war -ro7e out in =ecem-er 19+1. 9ith the out-rea7 of the war, the spouses and their children were interred in the ;to. Tomas :niversity concentration camp -y the Japanese from January 19+% to )arch 3, 19++. $evertheless, the defendant during the period of interment, paid to the plaintiff a total of 0+,&16.,, which according to the defendant, was e@tended as a loan to the plaintiff and which was o-tained -y -orrowing from his friends. After the li-eration in )arch 19+ , plaintiff and defendant and their children were among the first to -e sent -ac7 to the :nited ;tates for medical treatment, arriving in ;an 'rancisco on )ay 9, 19+ . 'rom the arrival of the parties in ;an 'rancisco in )ay 9, 19+ to January 1%, 19 1 when )ary, the youngest, reached the age of 1<, and when according to paragraph % of ?@hi-it A, the payment of support should cease, the defendant paid a total of D<,1+ .,,. The total amount due to the plaintiff -y way of support, in accordance with paragraph % of ?@hi-it A, from )ay 9, 19+ to January 1%, 19 1 is D1<,&1&.&1, there-y, leaving a -alance in favor of the plaintiff in the amount of D1,, &%.&l. 5#ecord on Appeal, pp. <+!<<6. >n >cto-er %, 19+<, private respondent commenced an action to recover from petitioner support in arrears and her share in the con/ugal partnership, in Civil Case $o. 6+, of the Court of 'irst (nstance of )anila, *ranch ((, praying that /udgment -e rendered in her favor and against defendant, under the first cause of action, for the sum of D3,++%.9,, :nited ;tates currency, or 06,<< .<,, 0hilippine Currency, and the further sum of D11,.,, or 0%%,.,, per month from )arch 1, 19+<, -oth with legal interest from the date of filing of the complaint until paid and, under the second cause of action, for the sum of 011,% ,.,,, with legal interest from the date of the filing of this complaint, until paid, plus the sum of 01,,,,.,, for attorney4s fees, with costs against defendant. 5#ecord on Appeal, pp. 1!116. As aforesaid, the trial court rendered a decision in favor of the plaintiff. >n appeal, respondent Court of Appeals on July 31, 196 , affirmed the decision of the trial court in all respects 5#ollo, pp. <%!1166. August , 196 , counsel for plaintiff!appellee, private respondent herein, filed a motion with respondent court for su-stitution of party plaintiff!appellee, who died in Eos Angeles, California, :nited ;tates of America on April % , 196+, -y her heirs, her

surviving spouse, Eaurence '. de 0rida and the legitimate children of the parties 5#ollo, p. 1+36. The motion was opposed -y petitioner herein on the ground that since the relation -etween attorney and client ceased with the death of plaintiff!appellee, counsel cannot present any motion for and in -ehalf of the children of the deceased client, unless authori8ed -y the said children andFor heirs. 5#ollo, p. 1++6. >n $ovem-er 3, 196 , the respondent Court issued its resolution granting the motion for su-stitution 5#ollo, p. %,96. A motion for reconsideration of the decision of respondent court dated July 31, 196 was filed -y petitioner on August %,, 196 5#ollo, pp. 1 +!199.6 (t was denied -y respondent court in another resolution also dated $ovem-er 3, 196 5#ollo, p. %1,.6 Bence, this petition filed with this Court on $ovem-er %6, 196 5#ollo, p.1.6 (n a resolution dated January &, 1966, the Court resolved to dismiss the petition for lac7 of merit 5#ollo, p. %1 !A.6 >n January %&, 1966, petitioner tiled a motion for reconsideration of the Court4s resolution of January &, 1966 5#ollo, p. %1&6 in view of which the Court re1uired respondents to answer within ten days from notice, in its resolution of 'e-ruary 1&, 1966 5#ollo, p. %+%.6 0rivate respondent Eaurence '. de 0rida filed his answer on April +,1966 5#ollo, p. %+&.6 >n April 1<, 1966, the Court resolved to give due course to the petition 5#ollo, p. %&6.6 The -rief for the petitioner was filed on June 1+, 1966 5#eno, p. %&962 the -rief for the respondent was filed on August % , 1966 5#ollo, p. %<<.6 The reply -rief was filed on $ovem-er 3, 1966 5#ollo, p. 3,<.6 >n January 1<, 196&, petitioner filed a manifestation that the Court ta7e cogni8ance of two letters of his son 9illiam, Jr. stating that the case will filed -y Earry de 0rida 5his mother4s alleged second hus-and6, without his consent and e@pressing a desire not to -e made a party to the case against his father 5#ollo, p. 3,9.6. Acting on the manifestation the Court re1uired private respondent to comment thereon, 5#ollo, p. 31 6 which was filed on 'e-ruary 16, 196& 5#ollo, p. 3166. A counter manifestation with reference to the comment of private respondent was filed -y petitioner on 'e-ruary %G, 196& 5#ollo, p. 31<.6 0etitioner raised several assignments of errors -ut the principal conflict in this case centers on 67et7er or 'ot t7e (ec1-1o' o3 re-2o'(e't Co0rt 6&- re'(ere( '0/&tor4 b4 t7e (e&t7 o3 2.&1't133-&22e..ee M081e. M. C71tt1c9 :2r1;&te re-2o'(e't 7ere1'< =ore t7&' o'e 4e&r be3ore 1t- 1--0&'ce &'( be3ore & -0b-t1t0t1o' o3 7e1r- co0.( be e33ecte(. The answer is in the &331r=&t1;e. ;ection 16, #ule 3 of the #ules of Court states. Dut# of attorne# upon death$ incapacit#$ or incompetenc# of part# .9henever a party to a pending case dies, -ecomes incapacitated or incompetent, it shall -e the duty of his attorney to inform the court promptly of such death, incapacity or incompetency, and to give the name and residence of his e@ecutor, administrator, guardian on other legal representative. ;ection 1& of the same #ule li7ewise, states.

Death of a part#.After a party dies and the claim is not there-y e@tinguished, the court shall order, upon proper notice, the legal representative of the deceased to appear and to -e su-stituted for the deceased, within a period of thirty 53,6 days, or within such time as may -e granted. (f the legal representative fails to appear within said time, the court may order the opposing party to procure the appointment of a legal representative of the deceased within a time to -e specified -y the court, and the representative shall immediately appear for and on -ehalf of the interest of the deceased. The court charges involved in procuring such appointment, if defrayed -y the opposing party, may -e recovered as costs. The heirs of the deceased may -e allowed to -e su-stituted for the deceased, without re1uiring the appointment of an e@ecutor or administrator and the court may appoint guardian ad litem for the minor heirs. 0rivate respondent )uriel ). Chittic7 died in Eos Angeles, California, :nited ;tates of America, on April % ,196+ while the case was pending with respondent Court of Appeals. (t was only on August , 196 , however, that counsel for private respondent filed a motion for su-stitution of party plaintiff!appellee 5#ollo, p. 1+36 five days after respondent court promulgated its decision of July 31, 196 , despite ;ection 16, #ule 3 of the #ules of Court which clearly provides for a prompt notice of such death to -e given to the Court -y the attorney of the deceased. (n fact said counsel himself admitted his lapse in memory, alleging however, that he thought all the while that he had already complied with the aforementioned sections of #ule 3 and that he discovered his neglect when he went over the records of the case upon receipt of the decision promulgated -y the Court of Appeals 5#ollo, p. 1+<6. There is no 1uestion that this duty applies in this case where a party dies after filing of the complaint and during the pendency of the case 5=oel v. Teves, 136 ;C#A 196 H19< I, nor is there any argument against the rule that counsel4s ine@cusa-le negligence is -inding on his client. 5Elantero v. Court of Appeals, 1, ;C#A 6,9 H19<1I, 0ulido v. Court of Appeals, 1%% ;C#A 63 H19<3I6. )ore than that, apart from the fact that there appears to -e no compliance with the procedure laid down in #ule 3, ;ections 16 and 1& of the #ules of Court, in order that a valid su-stitution may-e effected, all of the Chittic7 children who claim that they have no 7nowledge of such su-stitution, e@pressly and vehemently o-/ected to their -eing included as plaintiffs against petitioner, their father 5*rief for 0etitioner, pp. 33!366. Conse1uently, it is evident that the motion for su-stitution filed -y the counsel for the deceased and which was su-se1uently approved -y the Court of Appeals is null and void -ecause the party in whose name it was presented was dead, and therefore, the authority of the attorney to represent her had ceased 5)oran, Aol. (, p. %1<,19&9 ed.6. 'urthermore, the said motion was unauthori8ed -y the plaintiffs in 1uestion 5private respondents herein6 with the e@ception of Eaurence '. de 0rida, the alleged second hus-and of the deceased, whose heirship is however also in 1uestion. As correctly stated -y petitioner, there should first -e a prior determination as to whether or not de 0rida is an heir of the deceased -efore he can -e properly su-stituted as such 5*rief for 0etitioner, pp. 36+,6. :nder similar circumstances, this Court ruled as follows. (n the present case, there had -een no court order for the legal representative of the deceased to appear, nor had any such legal representative ever appeared in court to -e su-stituted for

the deceased2 neither had the complainant ever procured the appointment of such legal representative of the deceased, nor had the heirs of the deceased, including appellant, ever as7ed to -e allowed to -e su-stituted for the deceased. As a result, no valid su-stitution was effected, conse1uently, the court never ac1uired /urisdiction over appellant for the purpose of ma7ing her a party to the case and ma7ing the decision -inding upon her, either personally or as legal representative of the estate of her deceased mother. 5'erreria, et al. v. Ada. de "on8ales, et al., 1,+ 0hil. 1+36. "oing -ac7 to the case at -ar, it is without 1uestion that t 7ere 6&- 'o ;&.1( -0b-t1t0t1o' =&(e &'( &- & co'-e>0e'ce, t7e Co0rt o3 A22e&.- 'e;er &c>01re( ?0r1-(1ct1o' o;er t7e C71tt1c9 c71.(re' 'or o;er t7e &..e/e( -eco'( 70-b&'( 67o-e -t&t0- &- 7e1r 7&- -t1.. to be (eter=1'e(. ;till further, on $ovem-er %9, 19&&, counsel for petitioner filed with this Court a $otice of =eath of the latter on April 13, 19&& in )a7ati, )etro )anila 5#ollo, p. 3%%6. Accordingly, even assuming that there was a valid su-stitution still this case as a money claim against the defendant petitioner cannot survive under ;ec. , #ule <6 of the #ules of Court and should have -een filed against the decedent4s estate which is mandatory 5=e *autista v. =e "u8man, 1% ;C#A 6<% H19<3I6. $evertheless, -1'ce t7e C71tt1c9 c71.(re' &- 7e1r- o3 re-2o'(e't-cre(1tor &re &.-o t7e 7e1r- o3 2et1t1o'er-(ebtor, t7e ob.1/&t1o' -0e( 02o' 7&( bee' e@t1'/01-7e( b4 t7e =er/er 1' t7e1r 2er-o'- o3 t7e c7&r&cter o3 cre(1tor &'( (ebtor o3 t7e -&=e ob.1/&t1o' 5Art. 1%& , Civil Code6. WH!R!#OR!, t7e &22e&.e( (ec1-1o' o3 t7e Co0rt o3 A22e&.- 1- 7ereb4 Re;er-e( &'( %et A-1(e &'( t7e co=2.&1't 31.e( &/&1'-t (e3e'(&'t-2et1t1o'er 1- )1-=1--e(. No co-t-. %O OR)!R!). Fernan$ C.%.$ Feliciano and Cortes$ %%.$ concur. Gutierrez$ %r.$ %.$ is on leave.