Law Notes

Case Digest

Case Digest ▼

Case Digest

Adelino H. Ledesma v. Hon.

Rafael C. Climaco
G.R. No. L- 23815 (June 28, 1974)

Legal Ethics : Definition

Facts:

Petitioner Ledesma was assigned as counsel de

parte for an accused in a case pending in the sala
of the respondent judge. On October 13, 1964,
Ledesma was appointed Election Registrar for the
Municipality of Cadiz, Negros Occidental. He
commenced discharging his duties, and filed a
motion to withdraw from his position as counsel
de parte. The respondent Judge denied him and
also appointed him as counsel de oficio for the
two defendants. On November 6, Ledesma filed a
motion to be allowed to withdraw as counsel de
oficio, because the Comelec requires full time
service which could prevent him from handling
adequately the defense. Judge denied the motion.
So Ledesma instituted this certiorari proceeding.

Issue:

Whether or not the order of the respondent

judged in denying the motion of the petitioner is a
grave abuse of discretion?

Holding:

No, Ledesma's withdrawal would be an act

showing his lack of fidelity to the duty rqeuired of
the legal profession. He ought to have known that
membership in the bar is burdened with
conditions. The legal profession is dedicated to
the ideal of service, and is not a mere trade. A
lawyer may be required to act as counsel de oficio
to aid in the performance of the administration of
justice. The fact that such services are rendered
without pay should not diminish the lawyer's zeal.

Ratio:

“The only attorneys who cannot practice law by

reason of their office are Judges, or other officials
or employees of the superior courts or the office of
the solicitor General (Section 32 Rule 127 of
the Rules of Court [Section 35 of Rule 138
of the Revised Rules of Court]. The lawyer
involved not being among them, remained as
counsel of record since he did not file a motion to
withdraw as defendant-appellant’s counsel after
his appointment as Register of Deeds. Nor was
substitution of attorney asked either by him or by
the new counsel for the defendant-appellant
(People vs. Williams CA G.R. Nos. 00375-
76, February 28, 1963)
To avoid any frustration thereof, especially
in the case of an indigent defendant, a lawyer may
be required to act as counsel de officio (People v.
Daban) Moreover, The right of an accused in a
criminal case to be represented by counsel is a
constitutional right of the highest importance,
and there can be no fair hearing with due process
of law unless he is fully informed of his rights in
this regard and given opportunity to enjoy them
(People vs. Holgado, L-2809, March 22, 1950)
The trial court in a criminal case has
authority to provide the accused with a counsel de
officio for such action as it may deem fit to
safeguard the rights of the accused (Provincial
Fiscal of Rizal vs. Judge Muñoz Palma, L-
15325, August 31, 1930)

Home

View web version

Powered by Blogger.