Facts:
Adelino Ledesma, a counsel de parte for one of the parties in a case pending before the sala of Judge Rafael Climaco, filed a motion to withdraw as counsel de parte in light of his appointment as an election registrar. Judge Climaco, instead of granting his withdrawal, appointed him as counsel de oficio of the two defendants in the criminal case. Ledesma then filed a motion to withdraw as counsel de oficio but it was denied,. Hence, he instituted this petition for certiorari.
Issue:
Whether or not the respondent Judge acted with grave abuse of discretion in denying the petitioner's withdrawal as counsel
Held:
No. Membership in the Bar carries with it a responsibility to live up to its exacting standards. Law is a profession and not a trade or craft.Those enrolled in its ranks aid the courts in the administration of justice. As such, an attorney may be called or appointed as counsel de oficio to aid indigents for the realization of their constitutional right to counsel especially in criminal cases like this where a person may be convicted not because of his or her guilt but because he or she lacks competent legal representation.
Assuming Ledesma's good faith, his appointment as an election registrar cannot be availed of now when granting his withdrawal will result to the delay in the administration of justice. It is to be noted that the proceedings has been delayed at least eight times at the defense's instance, resulting to undue inconvenience to the parties involved.
What is easily discernible in this case is the petitioner's reluctance to comply with the responsibilities incumbent upon him as counsel de oficio. Petitioner is admonished for not being mindful of his obligation where he is expected to exercise due diligence, not mere perfunctory representation, to the case of his clients. He must be reminded that a member of the bar is a vanguard in the bastion of justice and is therefore expected to have a bigger dose of social conscience and a little less self-interest.
Full Text
Adelino Ledesma, a counsel de parte for one of the parties in a case pending before the sala of Judge Rafael Climaco, filed a motion to withdraw as counsel de parte in light of his appointment as an election registrar. Judge Climaco, instead of granting his withdrawal, appointed him as counsel de oficio of the two defendants in the criminal case. Ledesma then filed a motion to withdraw as counsel de oficio but it was denied,. Hence, he instituted this petition for certiorari.
Issue:
Whether or not the respondent Judge acted with grave abuse of discretion in denying the petitioner's withdrawal as counsel
Held:
No. Membership in the Bar carries with it a responsibility to live up to its exacting standards. Law is a profession and not a trade or craft.Those enrolled in its ranks aid the courts in the administration of justice. As such, an attorney may be called or appointed as counsel de oficio to aid indigents for the realization of their constitutional right to counsel especially in criminal cases like this where a person may be convicted not because of his or her guilt but because he or she lacks competent legal representation.
Assuming Ledesma's good faith, his appointment as an election registrar cannot be availed of now when granting his withdrawal will result to the delay in the administration of justice. It is to be noted that the proceedings has been delayed at least eight times at the defense's instance, resulting to undue inconvenience to the parties involved.
What is easily discernible in this case is the petitioner's reluctance to comply with the responsibilities incumbent upon him as counsel de oficio. Petitioner is admonished for not being mindful of his obligation where he is expected to exercise due diligence, not mere perfunctory representation, to the case of his clients. He must be reminded that a member of the bar is a vanguard in the bastion of justice and is therefore expected to have a bigger dose of social conscience and a little less self-interest.
Full Text
Comments
Post a Comment