A.C. NO. 5303 - HUMBERTO C. LIM, JR., IN BEHALF OF PENTA RESORTS CORPORATION/ATTORNEY-IN-FACT OF LUMOT A. JALANDONI, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. NICANOR V. VILLAROSA. R E S O L U T I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, it has been held that the right of an attorney to withdraw or terminate the relation other than for sufficient cause is considerably restricted. Canon 22 of the CPR reads: Canon 22 - A lawyer shall withdraw his services only for good cause and upon notice appropriate in the circumstances. An attorney may only retire from a case either by written consent of his client or by permission of the court after due notice and hearing, in which event the attorney should see to it that the name of the new lawyer is recorded in the case. [41] A lawyer who desires to retire from an action without the written consent of his client must file a petition for withdrawal in court. [42] He must serve a copy of his petition upon his client and the adverse party at least three days before the date set for hearing, otherwise the court may treat the application as a "mere scrap of paper." [43] Respondent made no such move. He admitted that he withdrew as counsel on April 26, 1999, which withdrawal was supposedly approved by the court on April 28, 1999. The conformity of Mrs. Jalandoni was only presumed by Atty. Villarosa because of the appearance of Atty. Alminaza in court, supposedly in his place. [A client] may discharge his attorney at any time with or without cause and thereafter employ another lawyer who may then enter his appearance. Thus, it has been held that a client is free to change his counsel in a pending case and thereafter retain another lawyer to represent him. That manner of changing a lawyer does not need the consent of the lawyer to be dismissed. Nor does it require approval of the court. [44] The appearance of Atty. Alminaza in fact was not even to substitute for respondent but to act as additional counsel. [45] Mrs. Jalandoni's conformity to having an additional lawyer did not necessarily mean conformity to respondent's desire to withdraw as counsel. Respondent's speculations on the professional relationship of Atty. Alminaza and Mrs. Jalandoni find no support in the records of this case. Respondent should not have presumed that his motion to withdraw as counsel [46] would be granted by the court. Yet, he stopped appearing as Mrs. Jalandoni's counsel beginning April 28, 1999, the first hearing date. No order from the court was shown to have actually granted his motion for withdrawal. Only an order dated June 4, 1999 had a semblance of granting his motion: When this case was called for hearing Atty. Lorenzo Alminaza appeared for the defendants considering that Atty. Nicanor Villarosa has already withdrawn his appearance in this case which the Court considered it to be approved as it bears the conformity of the defendants. [47] (emphasis ours) That Mrs. Jalandoni continued with Atty. Alminaza's professional engagement on her behalf despite respondent's withdrawal did not absolve the latter of the consequences of his unprofessional conduct, specially in view of the conflicting interests already discussed. Respondent himself stated that his