[A.C. No. 3773.

September 24, 1997]

ANGELITA C. ORCINO, complainant, vs. ATTY. JOSE GAS!AR, respondent.
!NO, J."
On June 14, 1992, complainant Angelita C. Orcino filed with this Court a letter-complaint dated ecem!er 1",
1991 against respondent Att#. Josue $aspar, her former counsel. Complainant pra#ed that this Court impose
disciplinar# sanctions on respondent for a!andoning his duties and for failing to return the legal fees she full# paid for
his services.
%he complaint arose from the following facts& Complainant engaged the services of respondent to prosecute a
criminal case she intended to file against several suspects in the sla#ing of her hus!and. 'n consideration thereof,
complainant !ound herself to pa# respondent legal fees of (2","""."" -- (1","""."" to !e paid upon signing of the
contract and the !alance to !e paid on or !efore the conclusion of the case. Complainant was also to pa# ()"".""
per appearance of respondent !efore the court and fiscal. %his agreement was em!odied in a contract e*ecuted on
+e!ruar# 22, 1991.
,1-
'n accordance with the contract, complainant paid respondent the sum of (),"""."" on +e!ruar# 2), 1991,
,2-
another (),"""."" on .arch /1, 1991,
,/-
and (1","""."" on .a# 21, 1991,
,4-
for a total of (2","""."".
+orthwith, respondent entered into his duties. 0e interviewed witnesses and gathered evidence to !uild a case
against the suspects. 0e drew up the necessar# sworn statements and dutifull# attended the preliminar#
investigation. %he case was thereafter filed with the 1egional %rial Court, 2ranch /3, 2aloc, 4to. omingo, 5ueva
6ci7a.
,)-
As private prosecutor, respondent religiousl# attended the !ail hearings for the accused although these hearings
were postponed on motion of the accused8s counsel. 1espondent however failed to attend the hearing scheduled in
August 1991. 't was at this hearing that the court, over complainant8s o!7ections, granted !ail to all the accused. After
the hearing, complainant immediatel# went to respondent8s residence and confronted him with his a!sence.
,9-
1espondent e*plained that he did not receive formal notice of the hearing.
,3-
Complainant !ecame !elligerent and
started accusing him of 7eopardi:ing the case !# his a!sence. 1espondent said that her suspicions were !ased on
rumors and intrigues fed to her !# her relatives.
,;-
Complainant, however, continued accusing him !elligerentl#. 4he
as<ed for the records of the case sa#ing that she could refer them to another law#er. 4tung !# her words, respondent
gave her the records.
,9-
Complainant never returned the records nor did she see respondent. On 4eptem!er 1;, 1991, respondent filed
!efore the trial court a =.otion to >ithdraw as Counsel.=
,1"-
%he motion did not !ear the consent of complainant.
On Octo!er 2/, 1991, the court issued an order directing respondent to secure complainant8s consent to the
motion =and his appearance as private prosecutor shall continue until he has secured this consent.=
,11-
Complainant refused to sign her conformit# to respondent8s withdrawal.
,12-
.eanwhile, the hearings in the
criminal case continued. 1espondent did not appear at the hearings nor did he contact complainant. Complainant
was thus compelled to engage the services of another law#er. 0ence, the letter-complaint.
>e referred the letter-complaint to the 'ntegrated 2ar of the (hilippines, Commission on 2ar iscipline, for
investigation, report and recommendation.
%he rule in this 7urisdiction is that a client has the a!solute right to terminate the attorne#-client relation at an#
time with or without cause.
,1/-
%he right of an attorne# to withdraw or terminate the relation other than for sufficient
cause is, however, considera!l# restricted.
,14-
Among the fundamental rules of ethics is the principle that an attorne#
who underta<es to conduct an action impliedl# stipulates to carr# it to its conclusion.
,1)-
0e is not at li!ert# to a!andon
it without reasona!le cause.
,19-
A law#er8s right to withdraw from a case !efore its final ad7udication arises onl# from
the client8s written consent or from a good cause.
,13-
4ection 29 of 1ule 1/; of the 1evised 1ules of Court provides&
"Sec. 26. Change of attorneys -- An attorney may retire at any time from any action or special proceeding, by the
written consent of his client filed in court. He may also retire at any time from an action or special proceeding,
without the consent of his client, should the court, on notice to the client and attorney, and on hearing, determine that
he ought to be allowed to retire. In case of substitution, the name of the attorney newly employed shall be entered on
the docet of the court in place of the former one, and written notice of the change shall be gi!en to the ad!erse party.
* * *.=
A law#er ma# retire at an# time from an# action or special proceeding with the written consent of his client filed
in court and cop# thereof served upon the adverse part#. 4hould the client refuse to give his consent, the law#er
must file an application with the court. %he court, on notice to the client and adverse part#, shall determine whether
he ought to !e allowed to retire. %he application for withdrawal must !e !ased on a good cause.
,1;-
'n the instant case, complainant did not give her written consent to respondent8s withdrawal. %he court thus
ordered respondent to secure this consent. 1espondent allegedl# informed the court that complainant had !ecome
hostile and refused to sign his motion.
,19-
0e, however, did not file an application with the court for it to determine
whether he should !e allowed to withdraw.
$ranting that respondent8s motion without complainant8s consent was an application for withdrawal with the
court, we find that this reason is insufficient to 7ustif# his withdrawal from the case. 1espondent8s withdrawal was
made on the ground that =there no longer e*ist,ed- the *** confidence= !etween them and that there had !een
=serious diffferences !etween them relating to the manner of private prosecution.=
,2"-
1ule 22."1 of Canon 22 of the Code of (rofessional 1esponsi!ilit# provides&
""A#$# 22 -- A %A&'() SHA%% &I*H+)A& HIS S(),I"(S $#%' -$) .$$+ "A/S( A#+ /0$# #$*I"(
A00)$0)IA*( I# *H( "I)"/1S*A#"(S.
)ule 22.23-- A lawyer may withdraw his ser!ices in any of the following cases4
a5 &hen the client pursues an illegal or immoral course of conduct in connection with the matter he is handling6
b5 &hen the client insists that the lawyer pursue conduct !iolati!e of these canons and rules6
c5 &hen his inability to wor with co-counsel will not promote the best interest of the client6
d5 &hen the mental or physical condition of the lawyer renders it difficult for him to carry out the employment effecti!ely6
e5 &hen the client deliberately fails to pay the fees for the ser!ices or fails to comply with the retainer agreement6
f5 &hen the lawyer is elected or appointed to public office6 and
g5 $ther similar cases."
A law#er ma# withdraw his services from his client onl# in the following instances& ?a@ when a client insists upon an
un7ust or immoral conduct of his caseA ?!@ when the client insists that the law#er pursue conduct violative of the Code
of (rofessional 1esponsi!ilit#A ?c@ when the client has two or more retained law#ers and the law#ers could not get
along to the detriment of the caseA ?d@ when the mental or ph#sical condition of the law#er ma<es him incapa!le of
handling the case effectivel#A ?e@ when the client deli!eratel# fails to pa# the attorne#8s fees agreed uponA ?f@ when the
law#er is elected or appointed to pu!lic officeA ?g@ other similar cases.
%he instant case does not fall under an# of the grounds mentioned. 5either can this !e considered analogous
to the grounds enumerated. As found !# the Commission on 2ar iscipline, this case arose from a simple
misunderstanding !etween complainant and respondent. Complainant was upset !# respondent8s a!sence at the
hearing where !ail was granted to the suspected <illers of her hus!and. 4he vehementl# opposed the grant of !ail. 't
was thus a spontaneous and natural reaction for her to confront respondent with his a!sence. 0er !elligerence arose
from her over:ealousness, nothing more. Complainant8s words and actions ma# have hurt respondent8s feelings
considering the wor< he had put into the case. 2ut her words were uttered in a !urst of passion. And even at that
moment, complainant did not e*pressl# terminate respondent8s services. 4he made this clear when she refused to
sign his =.otion to >ithdraw as Counsel.=
Assuming, nevertheless, that respondent was 7ustified in terminating his services, he, however, cannot 7ust do
so and leave complainant in the cold unprotected. %he law#er has no right to presume that his petition for withdrawal
will !e granted !# the court.
,21-
Bntil his withdrawal shall have !een approved, the law#er remains counsel of record
who is e*pected !# his client as well as !# the court to do what the interests of his client reCuire.
,22-
0e must still
appear on the date of hearing
,2/-
for the attorne#-client relation does not terminate formall# until there is a withdrawal
of record.
,24-
1espondent e*pressl# !ound himself under the contract to !ring the criminal case to its termination. 0e was in
fact paid in full for his services. 1espondent failed to compl# with his underta<ing, hence, it is !ut fair that he return to
complainant half of the amount paid him. %he peculiar circumstances of the case have rendered it impossi!le for
respondent and complainant to continue their relation under the contract.
IN #IE$ $%EREO&, respondent is admonished to e*ercise more prudence and 7udiciousness in dealing with
his clients. 0e is also ordered to return to complainant within fifteen ?1)@ da#s from notice the amount of ten
thousand pesos ?(1",""".""@ representing a portion of his legal fees received from the latter with a warning that
failure on his part to do so will result in the imposition of stiffer disciplinar# action.
SO OR'ERE'.