ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G. R. No. 141854.� March 30, 2005]
APOSTOL vs. CA
THIRD DIVISION
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated MAR 30 2005.
G. R. No. 141854 (ORLANDO APOSTOL vs. COURT OF APPEALS (16th Division), HON. JESUS G. BERSAMIRA as Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, Branch 166 and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES.)
On February 7, 2005, Esca�o & Partners Law Offices filed its notice of withdrawal as counsel for the petitioner Orlando Apostol. The notice was signed by Atty. Ana Celeste P. Bernad on behalf of the law firm. It was also, signed by the petitioner to show his conformity to the withdrawal.
On the same day, Pacis & Bernad Law Office entered its appearance as counsel for petitioner. Curiously, the entry of appearance of the new counsel was also signed by Atty. Ana Celeste P. Bernad.
A lawyer may retire at any time from any action or special proceeding with the written consent of his client filed in court and copy thereof served upon the adverse party. [1] cralaw As a rule, the withdrawal in writing of a lawyer as counsel for a party, with the client's written conformity, does not require the approval of the court to be effective, [2] cralaw especially if the withdrawal is accompanied by a formal appearance of a new counsel. The withdrawal ordinarily takes effect upon its filing in court, insofar as the court is concerned, and upon receipt of a copy thereof by the adverse party insofar as the latter is concerned. [3] cralaw
We hesitate to apply that rule here. We deem it more prudent to defer any action on the notice of withdrawal of appearance of Esca�o & Partners Law Offices and the entry of appearance of Pacis & Bernad Law Office until after we have clarified certain matters.
We observed that both the notice of withdrawal of the Esca�o & Partners Law Offices and the entry of appearance of the Pacis & Bernad Law Office were signed by Atty. Ana Celeste P. Bernad. We feel that this peculiar situation may have possible ethical implications.
In particular, this may open the door to professional discourtesy. Worse, this may lead to an encroachment upon the professional employment of another lawyer.
It appears that Atty. Ana Celeste P. Bernad used to be connected with Esca�o & Partners Law Offices. She was the lawyer of Esca�o & Partners Law Offices who handled this case from the time it was referred to the said law firm. In particular, she signed all the pleadings of petitioner in this case, namely, the petition, compliance on proof of service, reply, manifestation and memorandum. Thus, she may have possibly acquired knowledge of the case and got acquainted with the petitioner because of her connection with Esca�o & Partners Law Offices.
Given these circumstances, the fact that Atty. Ana Celeste P. Bernad signed both the notice of withdrawal of appearance for the Esca�o & Partners Law Offices and the entry of appearance of the Pacis & Bernad Law Office invites curiosity, if not suspicion.
Pacis & Bernad Law Office, where Atty. Ana Celeste P. Bernad is presumably a name partner, will gain the petitioner as client. On the other hand, Esca�o & Partners Law Offices, where Atty. Ana Celeste P. Bernad is also connected, will lose the petitioner in the roster of its clients. Thus, Atty. Ana Celeste P. Bernad's unusual position of straddling both sides of the fence makes her susceptible to take advantage thereof and encroach upon the professional employment of Esca�o & Partners Law Offices.
We are aware of the presumption of regularity and good faith in Atty. Ana Celeste P. Bernad's favor. However, we do not want to close our eyes on circumstances that may possibly lead to the violation of the ethical standards of the legal profession.
To obviate any appearance of irregularity or impropriety in situations similar to that which obtains here, prudence dictates that the lawyer who signs the withdrawal of appearance of the withdrawing counsel should not be the same as the lawyer who signs the entry of appearance of new counsel.
WHEREFORE, Esca�o & Partners Law Offices is hereby ordered to confirm its withdrawal as counsel for the petitioner and to submit a manifestation to that effect within ten days from receipt hereof.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Section 26, Rule 138, Rules of Court.
[2] cralaw Arambulo v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 105818, 17 September 1993, 226 SCRA 589.
[3] cralaw Cf. Bacarro v. Court of Appeals, 147 Phil. 35 (1971).
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
