ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. Nos. 131867-68.February 20, 2001]

PEOPLE vs. SISTOSO

EN BANC

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated FEB 20 2001.

G.R. Nos. 131867-68(People vs. Laureano Sistoso y Defranco @ "Yayan".)

In the Resolution of 8 December 1998 accused-appellant's counsel of record, Atty. Alexander H. Lim of the Trabajo Lim Law Office, ¹ 35 F. Rocha St., 6300, Tagbilaran City. was required to file Reply Brief within 30 days from notice. ² Rollo, p. 69.On 8 February 2000 the Court issued another Resolution requiring accused-appellant himself to inform the court of the name and address of his current counsel it appearing that Atty. Alexander Lim failed to file the required Reply Brief and that the Chief of the Docket Division, Office of the Solicitor General, ³ Id., p. 89. served a copy of its Appellee's Brief on a certain Francisco U. Pulseco ⁴ F.U. Pulseco Law Office and Notarial Services, 68 Quirino St., Aparri, 3515 Cagayan. instead on counsel of record, Atty. Lim. ⁵ Rollo, p. 91.

On 14 March 2000 the Court received a letter from a certain John Wright, who claimed to be the husband of accused-appellant's half sister, seeking the assistance of the court regarding the failure of Atty. Lim to file the Reply Brief despite the fact that he (Wright) had already paid him a total of P40,000.00 to pursue the appeal. ⁶ Id., p. 92.

In his Manifestation filed on 27 March 2000, Atty. Lim claimed that sometime during the second week of January 1999 accused-appellant's wife informed him that she already obtained the services of another counsel to represent her husband since Atty. Lim's office was very far from the Supreme Court.His belief that he had already been replaced as counsel for accused-appellant was confirmed, according to him, when he received a copy of the Appellee's Brief from the Office of the Solicitor General, wherein it was stated in its first page that Atty. Pulseco was the counsel for accused-appellant, and its last page even stated that a copy thereof was furnished Atty. Pulseco in Aparri, Cagayan. ⁷ Id., pp. 123 and 139.

On 8 August 2000 the Court issued a Resolution requiring Atty. Francisco U. Pulseco Jr. to manifest if he was representing accused-appellant.In his Manifestation, Atty. Francisco Bulseco Jr. alleged that his family name should be spelled "Bulseco" and not "Pulseco."He also stated that accused-appellant was not his client and that, as a matter of fact, he did not even know him personally. ⁸ Id., p. 146.

On 20 November 2000 the Court required the Office of the Solicitor General to comment on the Manifestation of Atty. Bulseco.In his Comment the Solicitor General stated that the counsel of record was still Atty. Alexander H. Lim but for some inexplicable reason his office erroneously furnished Atty. Francisco U. Bulseco Jr. with a copy of the Appellee's Brief.The Solicitor General added that although Atty. Lim manifested that he had been replaced he had not yet made any official communication to the Court regarding this matter. ⁹ Id., pp. 102-104.

Section 26, Rule 138, of the Revised Rules of Court provides that an attorney may retire at any time from any action or special proceeding, by the written consent of his client filed in court.He may also retire at any time from an action or special proceeding, without the consent of his client should the court, on notice to the client and attorney, and on hearing, determine that he ought to be allowed to retire.The record shows that Atty. Lim has failed to comply with this requirement.His Manifestation stating that accused-appellant's wife informed him that he had already been replaced cannot be considered as an official change of attorney in compliance with the Rules.Counsel cannot just abandon his client in midstream.The Revised Rules of Court provides the steps to be taken before the services of counsel may be terminated, and it would be good for counsel to put to heart Sec. 26, Rule 138.

WHEREFORE, Atty. Alexander H. Lim, counsel for accused-appellant is ordered to EXPLAIN within ten (10) days from notice why he should not be cited for contempt for his failure to file the required Reply Brief and to comply with Sec. 26, Rule 138, Revised Rules of Court instead of abandoning in midstream the cause of his client.Counsel is further required to file the Reply Brief within twenty (20) days from receipt of this Resolution.

The Court further (a) GRANTED the motion dated 9 January 2001, filed by the Office of the Solicitor General for appellee for an extension of fifteen (15) days from the expiration of the original period, or until 28 January 2001 within which to file comment on the compliance dated 15 September 2000 of Atty. Francisco U. Bulseco, Jr. and (b) NOTED the aforesaid comment dated 26 January 2001, filed in compliance with the resolution of 21 November 2000.

Very truly yours,

LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO
Clerk of Court

(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA

Asst. Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE