G.R. Nos. 114924-27 - DANTE NACURAY, ANGELITO ACOSTA AND LARRY CLEMENTE, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND BMC-BENGUET MANAGEMENT CORPORATION.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, the Court Resolved to DISMISS the petition for certiorari of the decision dated October 29, 1993 of the National Labor Relations Commission in NLRC NCR Case No. 00-04-01954-89 for failure to comply with requirement No. 2 and with Circular 19-91. Besides, even if the petition complied with the aforesaid requirements, it would still be dismissed, as the Court finds that no grave abuse of discetion was committed by the public respondent. [6] The minute resolution became final and executory. It was entered in the Book of Entry of Judgments on 28 February 1994. [7] Petitioners claim that they have no knowledge whatsover that a similar petition was filed by their counsel Atty. Ferraren with this Court. According to them they came to know of it only when they received copy of the Manifestation of respondent BMC. According to their undertaking, they immediately filed a Counter-Manifestation informing the Court of the existence of a similar petition before this Court; that after the favorable resolution of the Labor Arbiter was reversed by the NLRC, petitioners terminated the services of Atty. Ferraren verbally and formally thru a letter dated 26 November 1993 copy of which was furnished public respondent NLRC; and that the best proof of Atty. Ferrarens lack of authority to file the petition was the fact that he himself verified the same instead of having it verified by any of herein petitioners. [8] When required by this Court to explain why he filed the 17 December 1993 Petition for Certiorari, Atty. Ferraren replied that he received the letter from petitioners on 21 December 1993, four (4) days after he filed his petition in their behalf. He claimed that petitioners even urged him to file a petition as soon as they received copy of the decision of the Commission. But after he prepared the petition, he could not any more get in touch with his clients so he was constrained to take matters into his own hands. [9] Petitioners filed a memorandum on 21 November 1994 while respondent filed their supplemental memorandum on 28 April 1995.The following interrelated procedural issues were raised by petitioners: First, was there a valid substitution of counsel so that at the time Atty. Ferraren filed his petition he was no longer authorized to do so; Second, were petitioners guilty of forum shopping; and, Third, what is the effect of the minute resolution of the Third Division dismissing the first petition for certiorari? As regards the first issue, we hold that there was no valid substitution of counsel in accordance with the Rules. For a valid substitution of counsel the following elements must concur: (a) there must be a written request for substitution; (b) it must be filed with the written consent of the client; (c) it must be with the written consent of the attorney to be substituted; and, (d) in case the consent of the attorney to be substituted cannot be obtained, there must be at least a proof of notice that the motion for substitution was