Case: Heirs of Lorilla vs CA

Facts:

- PENCAPITAL Finance Corp. filed a complaint with the RTC Makati for
sum of money against several defendants involving Elias Lorilla who
acted as sureties for the two corporate debtors
- PENCAPITAL obtained writ of attachment on the real property of
defendant covered by TCT which was duly annotated on it.
- During the pendency of the case, Lorilla executed a dacion en pago
over the property in favor of JRMDC. In effect, her title was cancelled
and replaced under the name of JRMDC.
- JRMDC filed a suit against PENCAPITAL for the cancellation of the
latters levy on the property in question.
- Makati court rendered a judgement in favor of PENCAPITAL against
Elias Lorilla.
- Despite of the receipt of the said decision by the counsel of Lorilla,
he made no appeal to interpose the said judgement.
- Pasig court also rendered judgement dismissing JRMDC complaint
for the cancellation of attachment
- Heirs of Elias filed a motion to quash the writ of execution by the
Makati Court arguing that since Elias passed away before the Makati
court issued its decision, the case should have been dismissed as
provided under the Rules of Court.
- Makati Court denied the motion to quash ruling that the judgement
having become final is now beyond its authority to amend it by
dismissing the same.
- Hence, the heirs filed an appeal in CA. But CA Denied the petition.
Thus, heirs appealed to the SC.

Issue: WON the CA committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the petition
by the heirs?

Held:
No. Defendant’s counsel failed in his duty to promptly inform the court of the death of his client, as the Rules
require. As far as the RTC was concerned, until the writ of execution was issued, defendant continued to be
represented by counsel of record and that upon service of a copy of the decision on said counsel, defendant
was deemed to have been validly served notice of judgment. The failure of defendant’s counsel to serve
notice on the court and the adverse parties regarding his client’s death binds the heirs as much as defendant
himself could be bound.