Acts and inaction of a lawyer bind his client

The lawyer’s role in the dispensation of justice cannot be overemphasized. He can either win a hopeless case with his brilliance or jeopardize his client’s rights by sheer negligence.

The Supreme Court, in the recent case of Saligumba, et al. v. Palanog (G.R. 143365), underscored the oft-repeated legal maxim that the acts and inaction of a lawyer bind his client.

This case delved into the duty of a lawyer to notify the court of the death of his client while the case is pending, in order that proper substitution and representation may be made. Failure to make such proper notice would result in catastrophic consequences just like what happened in this case.

Saligumba, et al. v. Palanog is an offshoot of a case for quieting of title by spouses Palanogs, who claimed to be owners of a parcel of land, against spouses Saligumbas. In the course of the trial however, Mr. Saligumba died, without his lawyer informing the court of such death. However, court notices to Mr. Saligumba were returned with the notation “Party-Deceased,” while notices to Mrs. Saligumba were returned with  the notation “Party-in Manila.” Eventually, Mrs. Saligumba likewise died in 1985, a year after her husband died. Incidentally, the counsel-of-record of spouses Saligumbas was appointed as Municipal Circuit Trial Court Judge during the pendency of the case.

Eventually, trial ensued and a decision was handed down in 1987 without the spouses Saligumbas presenting their evidence. The court declared spouses Palanogs the lawful owners of the subject land and ordering spouses Saligumbas, their agents, representatives and all persons acting in privity with them to vacate the premises and restore possession to spouses Palanogs.

In 1997, when Mrs. Palanog, now a widow, tried to execute the judgment, the heirs of deceased spouses Saligumbas contested the decision on the grounds that the same is null and void and did not bind them since there was no proper substitution of the deceased spouses Saligumbas despite the trial court’s knowledge of their deaths.  Further, they alleged that they were deprived of due process as the deceased spouses Saligumbas were no longer represented by counsel.

In this case, the High Court took into consideration and appreciated certain facts of the case which justified its decision to affirm the decision of the trial court. First, even after the fact of death of Mr. Saligumba, the lawyer did not notify the court of such incident and even made three more court appearances moving for the resetting of the hearing. Second, there was no showing that the court’s proceedings were tainted with irregularities. Third, the son of spouses Saligumbas participated in the initial stages of the trial.

With these antecedent facts, the Supreme Court ruled that unserved notices are not the “proper notice” contemplated by the Rules and that the trial court could not take judicial notice of the death of a party without the proper manifestation from the counsel. Thus, “It is the duty of counsel for the deceased to inform the court of the death of his client. The failure of counsel to comply with his duty under Section 16 to inform the court of the death of his client and the non-substitution of such party will not invalidate the proceedings and the judgment thereon if the action survives the death of such party. The decision rendered shall bind   the party’s successor-in-interest.”

The High Court further elucidated that the appointment of the lawyer as MCTC judge did not ipso facto relieve him of his duties to represent his client. “ An attorney must make an application to the court to withdraw as counsel, for the relation does not terminate formally until there is a withdrawal of record; at least, so far as the opposite party is concerned, the relation otherwise continues until the end of the litigation. Unless properly relieved, the counsel is responsible for the conduct of the case.  Until his withdrawal shall have been approved, the lawyer remains counsel of record who is expected by his client as well as by the court to do what the interests of his client require. He must still appear on the date of hearing for the attorney-client relation does not terminate formally until there is a withdrawal of record.” (MDJ)