ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. No. 154577.� March 2, 2005]
PAGURAYAN vs. CA
THIRD DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated MAR 2 2005.
G.R. No. 154577 (EL CID PAGURAYAN, ANTONIO SOLOMON, ANGELITO RA�OSA, VILMA RAMOS, For themselves as representatives of the tenants, occupants and builders in good faith organized into the Don Domingo Neighborhood Association vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, LEONARDO T. REYES, DOLORES SORIANO and the PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 5, TUGUEGARAO, CAGAYAN.)
Before us are the amended motion to lift warrant of arrest dated February 21, 2005 and the comment/explanation dated February 22, 2005, filed by Atty. Victor I. Padilla, counsel for the respondents Dolores Soriano et al. (Sorianos), by way of compliance with our several resolutions requiring him to submit his comment on petitioners' petition for review.
As early as our September 30, 2002 resolution, we required the
respondents
[1]
cralaw
to comment on the petition for review filed by the petitioners. In our
resolution dated February 26, 2003 we gave respondents' counsel, Atty. Padilla,
a period of ten days from notice thereof to again file the comment and to show
cause why he should not be disciplinarily dealt with for his failure to file
the comment of the Sorianos the first time we required him to do so. On
February 16, 2004, we reiterated our directive to Atty. Padilla but he
continued to defy our orders. On July 7, 2004, we imposed a fine of P1,000
upon Atty. Padilla for his failure to heed our resolutions and, required him to
comply with our February 16, 2004 resolution within ten days from notice. On
January 17, 2005, after finding that Atty. Padilla failed anew to comply with
our July 7, 2004 resolution, we resolved to issue a warrant for his arrest and
directed the National Bureau of Investigation to cause Atty. Padilla's
immediate arrest and to detain him until he complies with our July 7, 2004
resolution.
On February 21, 2005, Atty. Padilla filed the amended motion to lift warrant of arrest. Atty. Padilla claimed that he was the counsel of the Sorianos in a petition for review on certiorari entitled "Dolores Soriano et al. v. Leonardo Reyes" docketed as G.R. No. 101568. The petition was denied with finality and entry of judgment was made on July 27, 1992. The entry of judgment, Atty. Padilla claimed, terminated the lawyer-client relationship between him and the Sorianos.
Atty. Padilla explained that this case is separate and distinct from G.R. No. 101568. The Sorianos did not rehire his legal services for this case. Hence, he did not file the comment because he lacked authority and personality to participate in the proceedings. He further averred that the Sorianos were no longer interested and have never participated in this case.
Atty. Padilla admitted receipt of our various resolutions, but
claimed that he failed to read them regularly and on time because of his
business and political activities in the Province of Cagayan. He was not able
to file a formal explanation for his failure to file the required comment due
to many professional and personal problems that he was then facing. As a sign
of good faith, however, Atty. Padilla paid the P1,000 fine imposed upon
him in our July 7, 2004 resolution.
In his comment/explanation, Atty. Padilla explained that, after the entry of judgment in G.R. No. 101568 and the remand of the records of Civil Case No. 3093 to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tuguegarao, Cagayan, Branch 5, he filed a motion to redeem property as counsel for the Sorianos. When the motion was denied, the case was appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), until it subsequently reached this Court in a petition docketed as G.R. No. 114765, which petition we denied.
Atty. Padilla claimed that the lawyer-client relationship between him and the Sorianos ceased when the denial of the petition in G.R. No. 114765 became final. He contended that he is not the counsel of the Sorianos in this case. As such, he could not file the required comment for lack of authority and legal personality.
We are not impressed with Atty. Padilla's explanation.
An attorney who undertakes to conduct an action impliedly stipulates to carry it to conclusion. [2] cralaw He is not at liberty to abandon it without reasonable cause. [3] cralaw A lawyer's right to withdraw from a case before its final adjudication arises only from the client's written consent or from good cause. [4] cralaw
Based on Atty. Padilla's own allegations, he was counsel for the Sorianos in Civil Case No. 3093, an action filed by the Sorianos against the other respondent, Leonardo T. Reyes. In fact, in his amended motion to lift warrant of arrest Atty. Padilla admitted that he was the counsel for the Sorianos in G.R. No. 101568, which arose from Civil Case No, 3093. He further admitted in his comment/explanation that, when the records of Civil Case No. 3093 were remanded to the RTC of Tuguegarao following the entry of judgment in G.R. No. 101568, he filed a motion to redeem in Civil Case No. 3093 on behalf of the Sorianos. When the RTC of Tuguegarao denied the motion to redeem, Atty. Padilla also served as counsel for the Sorianos when the order of denial was appealed to the CA and later to this Court in G.R. No. 114765. By his own admissions, therefore, Atty. Padilla is the counsel for the Sorianos in Civil Case No. 3093.
Like G.R. Nos. 101568 and 114765, this case stemmed from Civil Case No. 3093. In particular, this case arose from the denial by the RTC of Tuguegarao of the urgent motion to quash the writ of execution and for leave of court to intervene filed by the petitioners in Civil Case No. 3093. Thus, absent a valid withdrawal, Atty. Padilla remains to be the counsel of the Sorianos in this case.
His disavowal of the existence of a lawyer-client relationship between him and the Sorianos, in effect, constituted withdrawal as counsel for the Sorianos.
Under Section 26 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, 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. Should the client refuse to give his consent, the lawyer must file an application with the court. The court, on notice to the client and adverse party, shall determine whether he ought to be allowed to retire. The application for withdrawal must be based on a good cause. [5] cralaw
Here, there was no showing that the Sorianos either gave or refused to give their written consent to Atty. Padilla's withdrawal. Further, Atty. Padilla did not file an application with this Court for it to determine whether he should be allowed to withdraw.
Granting that Atty. Padilla's amended motion to lift warrant of arrest and comment/explanation may be deemed as an application with this Court for his withdrawal as respondents' counsel, he failed to show the existence of good cause or sufficient reason to justify his withdrawal from the case. He merely claimed that the lawyer-client relationship between him and the Sorianos had already been terminated. However, he failed to present any proof that would substantiate his claim. Moreover, his claim is contradicted by his own admissions.
A lawyer may withdraw his services from his client only in the following instances: (a) when a client insists upon an unjust or immoral conduct of his case; (b) when the client insists that the lawyer pursue conduct violative of the Code of Professional Responsibility; (c) when the client has two or more retained lawyers and the lawyers could not get along to the detriment of the case; (d) when the mental or physical condition of the lawyer makes him incapable of handling the case effectively; (e) when the client deliberately fails to pay the attorney's fees agreed upon; (f) when the lawyer is elected or appointed to public office; (g) other similar cases. [6] cralaw
Atty. Padilla's case does not fall under any of the above-mentioned grounds. Neither can it be considered analogous to the enumerated instances.
Even assuming that Atty. Padilla was justified in withdrawing as respondents' counsel, he cannot terminate his services and leave the Sorianos in the cold without any protection. A lawyer has no right to presume that his petition for withdrawal will be granted by the court. [7] cralaw Until his withdrawal shall have been approved by the court, a lawyer remains counsel of record who is expected by his client, as well as by the court, to do what the interests of his client require. [8] cralaw He must still file any pleading required of him by the court "for the attorney-client relation does not terminate formally until there is a withdrawal of record." [9] cralaw
WHEREFORE, the warrant for the arrest of Atty. Victor I. Padilla is hereby LIFTED, but his request to be relieved from filing the comment of respondents Dolores Soriano et al. is hereby DENIED. Atty. Victor I. Padilla is ordered to COMMENT on the petition for review within a non-extendible period of ten days from receipt of this resolution.
This supersedes our February 23, 2005 resolution dispensing with the comment of the respondents Dolores Soriano et al.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA SORIANO
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw There are two groups of respondents in this case, the Sorianos and Leonardo T. Reyes.
[2] cralaw Orcino v. Gaspar, 344 Phil. 792 (1997) citing Dais v. Garduno, 49 Phil. 165 (1925); and Stork County v. Mishel, 173 N.W. 817, 6 ALR 174 (1919), cited in Agpalo, Legal Ethics, pp. 289-290 (1992).
[3] cralaw Id.
[4] cralaw Id. citing Agpalo, supra, p. 290.
[5] cralaw Id. citing Agpalo, supra.
[6] cralaw Rule 22.01, Canon 22, Code of Professional Responsibility.
[7] cralaw Visitation v. Manit, 137 Phil. 348 (1969).
[8] cralaw People v. Casimiro, G.R. No. L-33416, 29 June 1972, 45 SCRA 554; Wack Wack Golf & Country Club v. Court of Appeals, 106 Phil. 501 (1959).
[9] cralaw Tumbagahan v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-32684, 20 September 1988, 165 SCRA 485; Visitation v. Manit, supra.
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
