ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 168694. March 27, 2006]

(FORMERLY G.R. NO. 150123) THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. SAIDAMIN MACABALANG Y MALAMAMA

Sirs/Mesdames:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated MAR. 27, 2006

G.R. No. 168694 (Formerly G.R. No. 150123) The People of the Philippines v. Saidamin Macabalang y Malamama )

This treats the following incidents: (1) Notice of Appearance dated 22 August 2005 filed by Atty. Zahrain M. Bantao, with address at Macauyag, Mijares, Dimaporo, Bantao and Associates Law Office, Suite 211 The One Executive Office, West Avenue, Quezon City, with the conformity of appellant Saidamin M. Macabalang; (2) Notice of Appearance dated 7 October 2005 filed by Atty. Alan D. Mijares, with address also at at Macauyag, Mijares, Dimaporo, Bantao and Associates Law Office, Suite 211 The One Executive Office, West Avenue, Quezon City, again with the conformity of appellant; (3) the Motion for Extension of forty-five (45) days from 7 October 2005 to submit supplemental brief filed by Atty. Mijares for appellant; and (4) the Notice of Termination of Service of Counsel dated 7 October 2005 filed by appellant, terminating the services of his counsel, Atty. Manuel D. Ballelos. Action on these incidents were deferred by the Court in its Resolution dated 5 December 2005, pending comment thereon by Atty. Ballelos.

Atty. Ballelos filed his Comment dated 11 January 2006, wherein he manifested his conformity to the Notice of Termination of his services, and prayed that all decisions, orders and resolutions of this Court be forwarded to Attys. Bantao and Mijares at their common office. Atty. Mijares, in behalf of appellant, has likewise filed the Appellant's Supplemental Brief.

While it is clear that appellant has disengaged the services of his previous counsel, Atty. Ballelos, there is still some confusion as to who exactly stands as appellant's present counsel. Two lawyers, Attys. Bantao and Mijares have entered their respective appearances for the appellant, and they both apparently belong to the same law firm. If it is appellant's intention to have as his legal representation either Atty. Bantao or Mijares, or both of them, or the firm to which both these lawyers belong, then the appropriate pleadings or manifestations should be filed to such effect, for the sake of clarification.

Nonetheless, appellant, through Atty. Mijares, has already filed his Supplemental Brief, and the People of the Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor General, has declined to file its own brief. Accordingly, there should be no more impediment in considering this case as submitted for resolution.

WHEREFORE, the case is hereby SUBMITTED for RESOLUTION.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORlANO
Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE