Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 31 views

    Socorro Sepulveda Lawas

    Uploaded by

    Buen Libetario
    This document summarizes a Supreme Court case regarding whether attorneys continue representing a client after their death. The Court ruled that: [1] The former attorneys for Pedro Sepulveda correctly filed a notice of his death and manifested in court that their contract ended with his death, as they were not engaged by his heirs; [2] Both the trial court and Court of Appeals erred in considering the former attorneys as representing the heirs, as representation ends with the client's death; [3] Representation does not continue to the deceased's heirs unless the heirs engage the former attorneys' services.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Socorro Sepulveda Lawas

    Uploaded by

    Buen Libetario
    31 views2 pages
    This document summarizes a Supreme Court case regarding whether attorneys continue representing a client after their death. The Court ruled that: [1] The former attorneys for Pedro Sepulveda correctly filed a notice of his death and manifested in court that their contract ended with his death, as they were not engaged by his heirs; [2] Both the trial court and Court of Appeals erred in considering the former attorneys as representing the heirs, as representation ends with the client's death; [3] Representation does not continue to the deceased's heirs unless the heirs engage the former attorneys' services.

    Original Title

    SOCORRO SEPULVEDA LAWAS

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document summarizes a Supreme Court case regarding whether attorneys continue representing a client after their death. The Court ruled that: [1] The former attorneys for Pedro Sepulveda correctly filed a notice of his death and manifested in court that their contract ended with his death, as they were not engaged by his heirs; [2] Both the trial court and Court of Appeals erred in considering the former attorneys as representing the heirs, as representation ends with the client's death; [3] Representation does not continue to the deceased's heirs unless the heirs engage the former attorneys' services.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    31 views2 pages

    Socorro Sepulveda Lawas

    Uploaded by

    Buen Libetario
    This document summarizes a Supreme Court case regarding whether attorneys continue representing a client after their death. The Court ruled that: [1] The former attorneys for Pedro Sepulveda correctly filed a notice of his death and manifested in court that their contract ended with his death, as they were not engaged by his heirs; [2] Both the trial court and Court of Appeals erred in considering the former attorneys as representing the heirs, as representation ends with the client's death; [3] Representation does not continue to the deceased's heirs unless the heirs engage the former attorneys' services.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    SOCORRO SEPULVEDA LAWAS, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. BERNARDO LL.

    SALAS, [as Judge,


    CFI, Cebu, Branch VIII], and PACIFICO PELAEZ, respondents

    G.R. No. L-45809. December 12, 1986.

    FACTS:

    Private respondent Pacifico Pelaez filed a Complaint against petitioner's father, Pedro Sepulveda, for
    ownership and partition of certain parcels of land. During the presentation of evidence for the plaintiff,
    the defendant died on March 25, 1975. On May 21, 1975, counsels for the deceased defendant filed a
    notice of death wherein were enumerated the thirteen children and surviving spouse of the deceased.

    At the hearing of the case on November 27, 1975, Attys. Domingo Antigua and Serafin Branzuela, former
    counsels for the deceased defendant, manifested in open court that with the death of their client, their
    contract with him was also terminated and none of the thirteen children nor the surviving spouse had
    renewed the contract, but instead they had engaged the services of other lawyers in the intestate
    proceedings.

    On January 13, 1976, the respondent trial judge issued three orders. The first order substituted the heirs
    of the deceased defendant, namely, his thirteen children and surviving spouse, as defendants; the
    second order authorized Atty. Teodoro Almase, counsel for the plaintiff, to present his evidence in the
    absence of Attys. Antigua and Branzuela; and the third order treated the case submitted for decision,
    after the plaintiff had presented his evidence and rested his case, and directed that said counsels and
    the fourteen heirs of the deceased defendant be furnished copies thereof.

    The respondent trial judge rendered a decision against the heirs of the deceased defendant.

    ISSUE:

    Whether or not Attys. Domingo Antigua and Serafin Branzuela continues to be the counsel for the case
    even after Pedro Sepulveda’s death

    RULING:

    No. The former counsels for the deceased defendant, Pedro Sepulveda, complied with Sec. 16, Rule 3 of
    the ROC by filing a notice of death on May 21, 1975. They also correctly manifested in open court that
    with the death of their client their contract with him was also terminated and none of the heirs of the
    deceased had renewed the contract, and the heirs had instead engaged the services of other lawyers in
    the intestate proceedings.

    Both the respondent trial judge and the Court of Appeals erred in considering the former counsels of the
    deceased defendant as counsels for the heirs of the deceased. As held in People vs. Florendo, "the
    attorneys for the offended party ceased to be the attorneys for the deceased upon the death of the
    latter, the principal." Moreover, such a presumption was not warranted in view of the manifestation of
    said lawyers in open court on November 27, 1975 that they were not representing the heirs of the
    deceased defendant.

    You might also like