#15 Francisco v. Atty. Portugal 15.
15. Investigating Commissioner found that Respondent Atty was guilty of violating the CPR
AC No. 6155
Mar 14, 2006 ISSUE:
By: Calags 1. whether Atty Portugal is guilty for violating the CPR
For our topic: If Atty. Portugal could terminate the atty-client relationship (NO)
Topic: Atty-client relationship
Petitioners: Ma. Gina L. Francisco (relative of the accused) HELD/RATIO:
Respondents: Atty. Jaime Portugal Yes. Atty. Portugal is guilty of violation of the CPR and should be suspended from the practice
Ponente: Regalado, J. of law for 3 months
DOCTRINE: General Rule: An attorney may retire at any time provided there is a written Client has absolute right to terminate the attorney-client relationship
consent of his client filed in court It is the client who had the right to terminate the attorney-client relationship at any time or
XPN: Attorney may retire at any time without consent of his client if the court, after notice to without cause. The attorney has no right to withdraw or terminate the relationship except
both client and attorney, determine that the attorney be allowed to retire when there is sufficient cause.
(also see: CPR Canon 22, Rules 22.01-2.02 for other instances when attorney may withdraw)
1. SP01 Tan and P03 Joaquin were involved in a shooting incident which resulted in the A lawyer who undertakes to conduct an action impliedly stipulates to carry it to its
Sanidganbayan finding the 2 accused guilty of 2 counts of homicide and 1 count of attempted conclusion. He cannot abandon the case without reasonable cause. A lawyer must first
homicide secure a written consent from the client.
2. the accused engaged the services of Atty. Portugal (respondent)
3. Respondent Atty. filed a MR which was denied by the Sandiganbayan. It is also the responsibility of the lawyer to file the Notice of Withdrawal and not the
4. Respondent Atty. filed an urgent motion for leave to file a 2nd MR. accused.
5. While the 2nd MR was pending, Respondent Atty. also filed a Petition for Review on
Certiorari Ad Cautelam. Lawyer owes fidelity to his client as well to the cause
6. After which, Respondent Atty was unreachable by the accused. Respondent Atty. did not Even if the lawyer feels that he is not sufficiently compensated, the lawyer still owes it to his
return phone calls nor did he update the accused, his clients, with the case. client to do perform his duty with diligence and candor in order to serve the ends of justice.
7. Respondent Atty could not even be reached at his last known whereabout.
8. Sandiganbayan then issued a resolution denying the petition for late filing and non- Besides, in this case it was proven that Respondent Atty was paid P15.5k for his services.
payment of docket fees. Due to the accused not being able to reach respondent atty, the
accused found out of this resolution late and by then the resolution had already attained There was a formal engagement between the parties
finality. Written contract is not an essential element in the employment of an attorney, the contract
9. Warrants of arrest had already been issued against the accused – partly due to respondent may be expressed or implied. In this case the Attorney’s undertaking of filing a motion for the
Atty failing to do anything to prevent the reglementary period for seeking reconsideration accused was implied engagement between the parties.
from lapsing
10. As defense, Respondent Atty. argues that he was not the original counsel of the accused. WHEREFORE, premises considered, respondent is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of
He was merely requested by the original counsel to be on hand, to assist, and to be present law for three (3) months. Let a copy of the Resolution be furnished the Bar Confidant for
at the promulgation of the Sandiganbayan decision appropriate annotation in the record of respondent.
11. Respondent Atty. also did not undertake any formal agreement with the parties.
12. Respondent Atty. further says asserts that because of the “herculean” efforts he put into
this case, he neglected his other obligations – much more that he was not properly
renumirated for his efforts.
13. Respondent Atty. also asserts that the ad cautelam petition was filed on time since on the
last day of filing a petition he filed a motion for extension of time to file petition for review
and that within that 30 days extension he filed the petition for review.
14. Respondent Atty. also argues that he had also decided to formally withdraw as counsel
for the accused. Allegedly he wrote a letter to the accused explaining his decision. With this
letter, he attached a notice to withdraw and also included instructions for the accused to
follow in filing the notice to withdraw with the Court. (there was no proof of this as he could
not find the registry receipt issued for the letter)
