Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2012 > March 2012 Resolutions > [G.R. No. 176579 : April 10, 2012] WILSON P. GAMBOA, PETITIONER, VS. FINANCE SECRETARY MARGARITO B. TEVES, ET AL. RESPONDENTS. :

Please take notice that the Court en banc issued a Resolution dated APRIL 10, 2012, which reads as follows:cralaw

"G.R. No. 176579 (WILSON P. GAMBOA, petitioner, vs. FINANCE SECRETARY MARGARITO B. TEVES, et al. respondents).

RESOLUTION

The Office of the Clerk of Court-En Banc process server reported that upon service of the 6 March 2012 Resolution setting this case for oral argument on 17 April 2012 on petitioner Wilson P. Gamboa, who represented himself, the latter�s son received the Resolution and at the same time informed the process server that petitioner is now deceased.

It must be noted that petitioner filed a pleading in September 2011, manifesting that he was already very ill and could no longer "perform his duties xxx as his own counsel,� and therefore, he was withdrawing as counsel" and that "a lawyer shall enter his appearance as his counsel of record." Until the present, no new counsel has entered his or her appearance on petitioner's behalf.

When a party dies during the pendency of a case, such as in this case, Section 16, Rule 3 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure applies, viz: 

Sec. 16. Death of party; duty of counsel. - Whenever a party to a pending action dies, and the claim is not thereby extinguished, it shall be the duty of his counsel to inform the court within thirty (30) days after such death of the fact thereof, and to give the name and address of his legal representative or representatives. Failure of counsel to comply with this duty shall be a ground for disciplinary action. 

The heirs of the deceased may be allowed to be substituted for the deceased, without requiring the appointment of an executor or administrator and the court may appoint a guardian ad litem for the minor heirs. 

The court shall forthwith order said legal representative or representatives to appear and be substituted within a period of thirty (30) days from notice. 

If no legal representative is named by the counsel, for the deceased party, or if the one so named shall fail to appear within the specified period, the court may order the opposing party, within a specified time, to procure the appointment of an executor or administrator for the estate of the deceased and the latter shall immediately appear for and on behalf of the deceased. The court charges in procuring such appointment, if defrayed by the opposing party, may be recovered as costs.

The present action survives or is not extinguished by petitioner's death because what is solely in issue is the definition of the term "capital" in Section 11, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution, which is a purely legal question.^[1] Since deceased petitioner represented himself in this case, the Court hereby orders petitioner's heirs to appear and be substituted, if they so desire, within thirty (30) days from receipt of this Resolution pursuant to the above provision.cralaw

Notably, petitioners-in-intervention Pablito V. Sanidad and Arno V. Sanidad join deceased petitioner's cause of action "in seeking, among others, to enjoin or nullify the sale x x x of the 111,415 Philippine Telecommunications Investment Corporation shares to First Pacific Company Ltd." Petitioners-in-intervention further claim that they have a legal and direct interest in the matter in litigation since they are subscribers, hence also stockholders, of Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company. For these reasons, the Court granted their motion to intervene^[2] and in effect, considered petitioners-in-intervention real parties-in-interest.^[3]

WHEREFORE, the Court ORDERS petitioner Wilson P. Gamboa's heirs to inform the Court, within fifteen (15) days from receipt of this Resolution, if they are substituting for the deceased petitioner.

The Court further NOTES  the 

(a) Entry of Appearance of Attys. Anthony B. Peralta and Sheryl G. Bartolome of Cochingyan and Peralta Law Offices, Unit 1202, 139 Corporate Center, 139 Valero St., Salcedo Village, Makati City 1227, entering as counsel for petitioners-in-intervention, Pablito V. Sanidad and Arno V. Sanidad; and 

(b) Manifestation dated March 27, 2012 of Lauro Gamboa, son of the late petitioner Wilson P. Gamboa, No. 3 Hubbard St., Filinvest I, Quezon City."

Perlas-Bernabe, J., on official leave.

  Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) ENRIQUETA E. VIDAL
  Clerk of Court

Endnotes:

---

^[1] See Cruz v. Cruz, G.R. No. 173292, 1 September 2010, where the Court explained: 

The criterion for determining whether an action survives the death of a petitioner was elucidated in Bonilla v. Barcena, to wit: 

The question as to whether an action survives or not depends on the nature of the action and the damage sued for. In the causes of action which survive, the wrong complained [of] affects primarily and principally property and property rights, the injuries to the person being merely incidental, while in the causes of action which do not survive, the injury complained of is to the person, the property and rights of property affected being incidental.

^[2] In the Court's Resolution dated 28 August 2007.

^[3] SEC. 2. Parties in interest. A real party in interest is the party who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to the avails of the suit. Unless otherwise authorized by law or these Rules, every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party in interest.