GR 181186

Siguion Reyna Montecillo and Ongsiako Law Offices (SRMO) Petitioners

Hon. Norma Cionlo-Sia, in her capacity as presiding judge of branch 56 of the RTC of Lucena City, and the
Testate estate of deceased Susano Rodriguez, represented by the Special Administratix, Respondents

FACTS:

 Susano Rodriguez was married to Remedios Rodiguez. On some certain date, Susano died
leaving behind his estate.
Remedios commenced an action for the settlement of the estate before the RTC of Lucena City.
She hired Petitioner Law Offices (SRMO) to represent her. She had also asked RTC to grant her a
“widow’s allowance”. This was however denied by the RTC.
Widow’s allowance
- an allowance of funds or personal property received by a widow after her husband's death to meet her immediate
requirements.
Agrrieved, she then appealed to the Court of Appeals.

 Feb 1988, While the case was pending before the CA, Remedios sold all her interests in the
estate in favor of Gerardo. However this transaction was not made known to the Court.

Meanwhile, Gerardo also hired petitioner SRMO to represent him in the same proceedings.

 Apr 1991, CA reversed the RTC decision and granted Remedios the widow’s allowance of
P315,000.00.
Later, SRMO facilitated the transfer of the amount to Gerardo, its other client.

 RTC later learned of the sale in favor Gerardo. As a result it motu proprio directed SRMO, in its
own capacity, to reimburse the court the P315,000.000 it received in 1991.

SRMO filed a motion to Excuse Reimbursement contending that it merely sought enforcement
of a judgment of credit in favour of its client. However the motion was denied by the RTC.

 SRMO appealed to CA through a petition for certiorari but CA denied the petition
CA ruled that
1. SRMO’s interest is only Incidental. It cannot file a petition for certiorari for its own behalf. It
was representing Gerardo who was not a party in the trial court and cannot therefore file
the petition.

 SRMO filed a petition for certiorari before the SC

ISSUE

1. Whether SRMO is a real party in interest and can therefore file a petition for certiorari

RULING

Answer

- Yes and the petition must prosper

Legal Basis

- A real party in interest is one who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the
suit.
- Technical rules of procedures should be used to promote, not frustrate, the case of justice.

Application
- In this case, SRMO’s interest can hardly be considered as merely incidental. The order to
reimburse the widow’s allowance was directed at SRMO in its own capacity and not to the
party it represents. It is being ordered to reimburse the widow’s allowance from its own
pocket. This was sufficient to give SRMO direct interest to challenge the RTC order. If the
petition would not be allowed, it would result to the unjust enrichment of Gerardo.

Conclusion

- Hence, to avoid such injustice, a petition for certiorari must be granted as an adequate
remedy.