D4. Parties to Civil Actions (Rule 3)

Question 1

Death of Counsel; Duty of Party Litigant

Answer 1

It is the party’s duty to inform the court of its counsel’s demise, and failure to apprise the court of such fact shall be considered negligence on the part of said party. For failure of petitioner to notify the CA of the death of its counsel of record and have said counsel substituted, then service of the CA Decision at the place or law office designated by its counsel of record as his address, is sufficient notice. The case then became final and executory when no motion for reconsideration or appeal was filed within the reglementary period therefor. (Ventanilla v. Tan, G.R. No. 180325, 20 Feb. 2013 citing Mojar, et al. v. Agro Commercial Security Service Agency, Inc.,

Question 2

Death or Separation of a Party who is a Public Officer

Answer 2

The action may be continued and maintained by or against the successor in the public office if the following requisites are present:

1. The public officer is a party to an action in his official capacity;
2. During the pendency of the action, he either dies, resigns or ceases to hold office;
3. It is satisfactorily shown to the court by any party, within 30 days after the successor takes office, that there is a substantial need for continuing or maintaining the action;
4. That the successor adopts or continues or threatens to adopt or continue the action of his predecessor;
5. The party or officer affected has been given reasonable notice of the application therefor and accorded an opportunity to be heard. (Rule 3, Sec. 17, ROC, as amended)

Question 3

Doctrine of Locus Standi

Answer 3

This doctrine requires a litigant to have a material interest in the outcome of the case. It refers to a personal and substantial interest in a case such that the party has sustained or will sustain direct injury because of the challenged governmental act. (Riano, 2019, citing Osmeña III v. Abaya, G.R. No. 211737, 13 Jan. 2016)

However, since the rule is a mere procedural technicality, the Court has waived or relaxed the rule, allowing persons who may not have been personally injured by the operation of a law or a governmental act. The Court has laid out the bare minimum norm to extend the standing to sue to the “non-traditional suiters” as such:

1. Taxpayers – there must be a claim of illegal disbursement of public funds, or that the tax measure is unconstitutional;
2. Voters – there must be a showing of obvious interest in the validity of the law in question;
3. Concerned citizens – there must be a showing that the issues raised are of transcendental importance, which must be settled early; and
4. Legislators – there must be a claim that the official action complained of infringes on their prerogative as legislators. (Funa v. Agra, G.R. No. 191644, 19 Feb. 2013)

Question 4

Real Party-in-Interest vs. Locus Standi

Answer 4

RPII: A party that: 1. Stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit; or 2. Is entitled to the avails of the suit (Sec. 2, Rule 3, ROC, as amended

LS:Right of appearance in a court of justice on a given question.

RPII: The interest must be ‘real’, which is a present substantial interest, as distinguished from a mere expectancy or a future, contingent subordinate or consequential interest. (Rayo v. Metrobank, G.R. No. 165142, 10 Dec. 2007

LS: The one who sues must show that he has sustained injury or will sustain a direct injury as a result of a government action, or has a material interest in the issue affected by the challenged official act. (Funa v. Agra, G.R. No. 191644, 19 Feb. 2013)

RPII: Unless otherwise authorized by law or by the Rules, every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party in interest. (Sec. 2, Rule 3, ROC, as amended; Stronghold

LS: Significant in cases involving questions of constitutionality, because it is one of the essential requisites before such questions may be judicially entertained.