Short answer. No, it can continue against his successor. Section 17 of Rule 3 allows the action to be maintained by or against the successor if, within thirty days of taking office (or a court-granted extension), a party shows a substantial need to continue and that the successor adopts or continues the predecessor's action.

What the law says

When a public officer is a party in an action in his official capacity and during its pendency dies, resigns, or otherwise ceases to hold office, the action may be continued and maintained by or against his successor if, within thirty days after the successor takes office or such time as may be granted by the court, it is satisfactorily shown to the court by any party that there is a substantial need for continuing or maintaining it and that the successor adopts or continues or threatens to adopt or continue the action of his predecessor.

Rule 3, Section 17 — Death or separation of a party who is a public officer. Read the full provision →

The problem: officials come and go, but the office continues

When a public officer is sued in an official capacity — as opposed to personally — and then dies, resigns, or otherwise leaves the position while the case is pending, the individual defendant is gone, but the underlying dispute involving that office may not be. Section 17 exists to prevent a case against an official capacity from simply evaporating every time the person occupying that office changes.

The conditions for continuing against the successor

Continuation is not automatic. It requires that, within thirty calendar days after the successor takes office — or such further time as the court grants — a party satisfactorily show the court that there is a 'substantial need' for continuing or maintaining the action, and that the successor 'adopts or continues or threatens to adopt or continue' the predecessor's action or position. Both elements must be shown; the mere fact that someone new now holds the office is not enough by itself.

Notice and a chance to be heard before substitution

Section 17 also protects the incoming officer: before a substitution is made, the party or officer to be affected — unless they expressly assent — must be given reasonable notice of the application for substitution and an opportunity to be heard. This ensures the new officeholder isn't simply swapped into ongoing litigation without any chance to respond to whether continuing the case against them is warranted.

What happens if no one moves to substitute

The successor stepping into office does not by itself keep the case alive. If no party comes forward within the thirty-day window, or such further time as the court allows, to show the substantial need and the successor's adoption or continuation of the predecessor's position, the case involving that official capacity is left without anyone properly before the court to answer for it, which can leave the action vulnerable to dismissal as to that party.

Related provisions

Note. Statute text quoted on this page is reproduced from the official enactment and is linked to the full provision. The explanation around it is general legal information from Vivas & Nobles Law Office, not legal advice. Whether it applies to your situation depends on facts only a lawyer reviewing them can assess.