SECOND DIVISION - II -

A.C. No. 5303             June 15, 2006 That respondent is a practicing lawyer and a member of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines, Bacolod City, Negros Occidental Chapter…. That sometime on
HUMBERTO C. LIM, JR., in behalf of PENTA RESORTS September 19, 1997, Lumot A. Jalandoni, Chairman/President of PRC was sued
CORPORATION/Attorney-in-Fact of LUMOT A. JALANDONI, Complainant, before RTC, Branch 52 in Civil Case No. 97-9865, RE: Cabiles et al. vs. Lumot
vs. Jalandoni, et al. The latter engaged the legal services of herein respondent who
ATTY. NICANOR V. VILLAROSA, Respondent. formally entered his appearance on October 2, 1997 as counsel for the defendants
Lumot A. Jalandoni/Totti Anlap Gargoles…. Respondent as a consequence of said
Attorney-Client relationship represented Lumot A. Jalandoni et al in the entire
RESOLUTION proceedings of said case. Utmost trust and confidence was reposed on said counsel,
hence delicate and confidential matters involving all the personal circumstances of his
CORONA, J.: client were entrusted to the respondent. The latter was provided with all the
necessary information relative to the property in question and likewise on legal
Humberto C. Lim Jr.1 filed a verified complaint for disbarment against respondent matters affecting the corporation (PRC) particularly [involving] problems [which affect]
Atty. Nicanor V. Villarosa on July 7, 2000. 2 On February 19, 2002, respondent moved Hotel Alhambra. Said counsel was privy to all transactions and affairs of the
for the consolidation of the said complaint with the following substantially interrelated corporation/hotel….
cases earlier filed with the First Division of this Court:
- III -
1. Administrative Case No. 5463: Sandra F. Vaflor v. Atty. Adoniram P.
Pamplona and Atty. Nicanor V. Villarosa; That it was respondent who exclusively handled the entire proceedings of afore-cited
Civil Case No. 97-9865 [and] presented Lumot A. Jalandoni as his witness prior to
2. Administrative Case No. 5502: Daniel A. Jalandoni v. Atty. Nicanor V. formally resting his case. However, on April 27, 1999 respondent, without due notice
Villarosa. prior to a scheduled hearing, surprisingly filed a Motion to withdraw as counsel, one
day before its scheduled hearing on April 28, 1999…. A careful perusal of said Motion
to Withdraw as Counsel will conclusively show that no copy thereof was furnished to
In a resolution dated February 24, 2003, this Court considered Administrative Case Lumot A. Jalandoni, neither does it bear her conformity…. No doubt, such notorious
No. 5463 closed and terminated.3 On February 4, 2004, considering the pleadings act of respondent resulted to (sic) irreparable damage and injury to Lumot A.
filed in Administrative Case No. 5502, the Court resolved: Jalandoni, et al since the decision of the court RTC, Branch 52 proved adverse to
Lumot A. Jalandoni, et al…. The far reaching effects of the untimely and unauthorized
(a) to NOTE the notice of the resolution dated September 27, 2003 of the withdrawal by respondent caused irreparable damage and injury to Lumot A.
Integrated Bar of the Philippines dismissing the case against respondent for Jalandoni, et al; a highly meritorious case in favor of his client suddenly [suffered]
lack of merit; and unexpected defeat.

(b) to DENY, for lack of merit, the petition filed by complainant praying that - IV -
the resolution of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines dismissing the instant
case be reviewed and that proper sanctions be imposed upon respondent.4 That the grounds alleged by respondent for his withdrawal as counsel of Lumot A.
Jalandoni, et al. was that he is [a] retained counsel of Dennis G. Jalbuena and the
No motion for reconsideration of the aforesaid denial in Administrative Case No. 5502 Fernando F. Gonzaga, Inc. It was Dennis G. Jalbuena who recommended him to be
appears in the records. The Court is now called upon to determine the merits of this the counsel of Lumot A. Jalandoni, et al. It is worthy to note that from the outset,
remaining case (A.C. No. 5303) against respondent. respondent already knew that Dennis G. Jalbuena is the son-in-law of Lumot A.
Jalandoni being married to her eldest daughter, Carmen J. Jalbuena. The other
directors/officers of PRC were comprised of the eldest sibling of the remaining
The complaint read:
children of Lumot A. Jalandoni made in accordance with her wishes, with the
exception of Carmen J. Jalbuena, the only daughter registered as one of the
AS FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION incorporators of PRC, obviously, being the author of the registration itself [sic]….
Respondent further stated that he cannot refuse to represent Dennis G. Jalbuena in
xxx xxx xxx the case filed against the latter before the City Prosecutors Office by PRC/Lumot A.
Jalandoni due to an alleged retainership agreement with said Dennis G. Jalbuena.
1
[He] likewise represented Carmen J. Jalbuena and one Vicente Delfin when PRC filed respondent will not be in a position to furnish his conspirator spouses with confidential
the criminal complaint against them…. On April 06, 1999, twenty-one (21) days prior information on Lumot A. Jalandoni/PRC, operator of Alhambra Hotel.
to respondent’s filing of his Motion to Withdraw as Counsel of Lumot A. Jalandoni, et
al., respondent entered his appearance with Bacolod City Prosecutor OIC-Vicente C. - II -
Acupan, through a letter expressly stating that effective said date he was appearing
as counsel for both Dennis G. Jalbuena and Carmen J. Jalbuena and Vicente Delfin
in the "Estafa" case filed by the corporation (PRC) against them…. Simply stated, as Adding insult to injury, respondent opted to deliberately withhold the entire case file
early as April 6, 1999 respondent already appeared for and in behalf of the Sps. including the marked exhibits of the Cabiles case for more than three (3) months after
Carmen and Dennis Jalbuena/Vicente Delfin while concurrently representing Lumot his untimely unilateral withdrawal therefrom, despite repeated demands from [his]
A. Jalandoni, et al. in Civil Case No. 97-9865…. However, despite being fully aware client. On July 26, 1999, capitalizing on his knowledge of the indispensability of said
that the interest of his client Lumot A. Jalandoni [holding an equivalent of Eighty-two documents particularly the marked exhibits, which deadline to file the formal offer of
(82%) percent of PRC’s shares of stocks] and the interest of PRC are one and the exhibits was continually impressed upon the new counsel by the court, respondent
same, notwithstanding the fact that Lumot A. Jalandoni was still his client in Civil suddenly interposed an amount of five thousand (P5,000.00) pesos as consideration
Case No. 97-9862, respondent opted to represent opposing clients at the same prior to or simultaneous to the turnover of said documents…. [On] July 29, 1999, left
time.  The corporation’s complaint for estafa (P3,183,5525.00) was filed against the with no other alternative owing to the urgency of the situation, PRC issued Check No.
Sps. Dennis and Carmen J. Jalbuena together with UCPB bank manager Vicente 2077686 for P5,000.00 in payment thereof. This was duly received by respondent’s
Delfin. Succeeding events will show that respondent instead of desisting from further office on the same date…. Such dilatory tactics employed by respondent immensely
violation of his [lawyer’s] oath regarding fidelity to his client, with extreme arrogance, weakened the case of Lumot A. Jalandoni eventually resulting to (sic) an adverse
blatantly ignored our laws on Legal Ethics, by palpably and despicably defending the decision against [her]….
Sps. Dennis and Carmen J. Jalbuena in all the cases filed against them by PRC
through its duly authorized representatives, before the Public Prosecutors Office, Further demonstrating before this Honorable Court the notoriety of respondent in
Bacolod City (PP vs. Sps. Dennis and Carmen J. Jalbuena for False representing conflicting interest which extended even beyond the family controversy
Testimony/Perjury, viol. of Art. 183 RPC under BC I.S. No. 2000-2304; viol. of Art. was his improper appearance in court in Civil Case No. 99-10660, RE: Amy Albert
363, 364, 181 and 183 RPC under BC I.S. 2000-2343, PP vs. Carmen J. Jalbuena for Que vs. Penta Resorts Corp., this time favoring the party opponent of defendant who
viol. of Art. 315 … under BC I.S. 2000-2125 and various other related criminal cases is even outside the family circle. During the pre-trial hearing conducted on May 5,
against the Sps. Dennis and Carmen Jalbuena)…. 1999, while still [holding] exclusive possession of the entire case file of his client in
Civil Case No. 97-9865, respondent brazenly positioned himself beside Atty.
AS SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION Adoniram P. Pamplona, counsel of plaintiff [in] a suit against his client Lumot A.
Jalandoni/PRC, coaching said counsel on matters [he was privy to] as counsel of said
client. Facts mentioned by said counsel of the plaintiff starting from the last par.
xxx xxx xxx jcomplaint against him was unfounded, respondent presented the following version in
his defense:
-I-
FACTS OF THE CASE
xxx xxx xxx
xxx xxx xxx
There is no dispute that respondent was able to acquire vast resources of confidential
and delicate information on the facts and circumstances of [Civil Case No. 97-9865] That Mrs. Jalandoni has two sons-in-law, namely Dennis G. Jalbuena married to her
when Lumot A. Jalandoni was his client … which knowledge and information was daughter, Carmen J. Jalbuena, and Humberto C. Lim Jr., the herein complainant
acquired by virtue of lawyer-client relationship between respondent and his clients. married to her daughter, Cristina J. Lim.
Using the said classified information which should have been closely guarded …
respondent did then and there, willfully, unlawfully, feloniously conspired and
confabulated with the Sps. Dennis and Carmen J. Jalbuena in concocting the That Mrs. Lumot Jalandoni organized a corporation namely the Penta Resorts
despicable and fabricated charges against his former clients denominated as PP vs. Corporation (PRC) where she owned almost ninety seven percent (97%). In other
Lumot A. Jalandoni, Pamela J. Yulo, Cristina J. Lim and Leica J. Lim for viol. of Art. words, in reality, Penta Resorts Corporation is a single proprietorship belonging to
172 of Revised Penal Code due to a board resolution executed by the corporation Mrs. Jalandoni. That the only property of the corporation is as above-stated, the
which the Sps. Jalbuena, with the assistance of herein respondent, claimed to have Alhambra Hotel, constructed solely through the effort of the spouses Jalbuena on that
been made without an actual board meeting due to an alleged lack of quorum, parcel of land now claimed by the Cabiles family.
[among other things]. Were it not for said fiduciary relation between client and lawyer,

2
That sometime on the year 1997 the case above-cited (Civil Case No. 97-9865) was of Mrs. Jalandoni at Hotel Alhambra, he maintained that it was the height of hypocrisy
filed before the court against the sisters. to allege that Mrs. Jalandoni was not aware of his motion to withdraw 13 since Mrs.
Gargoles is Mrs. Jalandoni’s sister and Hotel Alhambra is owned by PRC which, in
That [he], being RETAINED counsel of the spouses Dennis and Carmen J. Jalbuena turn, actually belongs to Mrs. Jalandoni. Respondent also argued that no prejudice
was RECOMMENDED by the spouses to the sisters to answer the complaint filed was suffered by Mrs. Jalandoni because she was already represented by Atty.
against them. Lorenzo S. Alminaza from the first hearing date.14 In fact, respondent contended, it
was he who was not notified of the substitution of counsels.15
II.
As to the bill of P 5,000, respondent stated:
That as counsel to the sisters, [he] filed a Motion for Extension Of Time To File
Answer … and ultimately, [he] filed an Answer With Counter-Claim And Prayer For That Mr. Lim begrudge[s] [him] for billing Mrs. Jalandoni Five Thousand
Issuance Of Writ Of Preliminary Injunction…. (Php5,000.00) Pesos. Mr. Humberto C. Lim Jr. conveniently forgets that the net
worth of the property together with its improvements, under litigation in that Cabiles,
et al. vs. Gargoles et al. case, is a minimum of THIRTY MILLION (Php30,000,000.00)
That reading the Answer … it is clear that the defense of the sisters totally rest PESOS then, and more so now. [He] cannot find any law which prohibits a counsel
on public documents (the various titles issued to the land in question because of the from billing a client for services in proportion to the services he rendered.16
series [of changes] in ownership) and the sisters’ and their parents’ actual occupation
and possession thereof. xxx xxx xxx
In view of these developments, respondent was adamant that:
Mr. Lim[’s] accusation against [him] in the light of the above-facts is the best evidence
of Humberto C. Lim, Jr.’s penchant for exaggeration and distortion of the truth. Since the only real question to be answered in this complaint is why Mr. Lim so consistently
the defense of the sisters to retain ownership of the land in question is based [determined] to immerse the Jalandoni family [in] a series of criminal and civil suits
on PUBLIC documents, what delicate and confidential matters involving personal and to block all attempts to reconcile the family by prolonging litigations, complaints
circumstances of the sisters allegedly entrusted to [him], is Mr. Humberto C. Lim, Jr. and filing of new ones in spite of the RESOLUTION of the corporation and the
talking about in paragraphs I and II of his Complaint? What [privity] to all transactions UNDERTAKING of the members….17
and affairs of the corporation/hotel is he referring to?  Whatever transactions the
corporation may have been involved in or [may be getting involved into], is totally On June 18, 2001, the Court resolved to refer the complaint to the Integrated Bar of
immaterial and irrelevant to the defense of the sisters. the Philippines (IBP) for investigation. Commissioner Lydia A. Navarro made the
following report and recommendation:
There was nothing personal [about the] circumstances of the sisters nor transactions
of the corporation [which were] discussed. The documents being offered as evidence, xxx xxx xxx
[he] reiterate[s] for emphasis, are public; the presumption is that the whole world
knows about them…. After going over the [pieces of evidence] submitted by the parties[,] the undersigned
noted that from the onset, PRC had a case wherein respondent was its counsel. Later
That [he] [also] vehemently den[ies] another distorted allegation of Mr. Lim that [he] on, complainant had a case against spouses Jalbuena where the parties were related
represented Mrs. Jalandoni [in] the entire proceedings of [the] case. [Lim] himself to each other and the latter spouses were represented by the respondent as their
attested that [he] [filed] [his] Motion to Withdraw As Counsel, dated April 26, retained counsel; after respondent had allegedly withdrawn as counsel for the
1999 … , before the trial court, sometime on April 27, 1999. How then could [he] have complainant in Civil Case No. 97-9865.
represented Mrs. Jalandoni for [the] entire proceedings of the case?
Being the husband of one of the complainants which respondent himself averred in
Further, Mr. Lim intentionally hid from this Honorable Court the important fact that his answer, it is incumbent upon Humberto Lim Jr. to represent his wife as one of the
[his] Motion to Withdraw was APPROVED by the trial court because of representatives of PRC and Alhambra Hotel in the administrative complaint to protect
the possibility of a conflict of interest. xxx xxx xxx. 11 not only her interest but that of the [family’s].

Respondent discredited Lim’s claim that he deliberately withheld the records of the From the facts obtaining, it is evident that complainant had a lawyer-client relationship
cited civil case. He insisted that it took him just a few days, not three months, to turn with the respondent before the latter [was] retained as counsel by the Spouses
over the records of the case to Lim.12 While he admitted an oversight in addressing Jalbuena when the latter were sued by complainant’s representative.
the notice of the motion to withdraw as counsel to Mrs. Totti Anlap Gargoles instead

3
We cannot disregard the fact that on this situation for some reason or another there The IBP Board of Governors may, motu propio or upon referral by the Supreme Court
existed some confidentiality and trust between complainants and respondent to or by a Chapter Board of Officers, or at the instance of any person, initiate and
ensure the successful defense of their cases. prosecute proper charges against any erring attorneys….22 (emphasis ours)

Respondent for having appeared as counsel for the Spouses Jalbuena when charged Complaints against members of the Bar are pursued to preserve the integrity of the
by respondent’s former client Jalandoni of PRC and Alhambra Hotel, represented legal profession, not for private vendetta. Thus, whoever has such personal
conflicting interests … in violation of the Canon of Professional Responsibility. knowledge of facts constituting a cause of action against erring lawyers may file a
verified complaint with the Court or the IBP. 23 Corollary to the public interest in these
As such therefore, the Undersigned has no alternative but to respectfully recommend proceedings is the following rule:
the suspension of the respondent from the practice of law for a period of six (6)
months from receipt hereof. SEC. 11. Defects. – No defect in a complaint, notice, answer, or in the
proceeding or the Investigator’s Report shall be considered as substantial
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED. unless the Board of Governors, upon considering the whole record, finds that
such defect has resulted or may result in a miscarriage of justice, in which event
the Board shall take such remedial action as the circumstances may warrant,
Pasig City, June 20, 2002.18 including invalidation of the entire proceedings.24 (emphasis ours)

The IBP Board of Governors (Board), however, reversed the recommendation of the Respondent failed to substantiate his allegation that Lim’s complaint was defective in
investigating commissioner and resolved to dismiss the case on August 3, form and substance, and that entertaining it would result in a miscarriage of justice.
2002.19 Lumot A. Jalandoni filed a motion for reconsideration (MR) on October 18, For the same reason, we will no longer put in issue the filing at the onset of a motion
2002 but the Board denied the MR since it no longer had jurisdiction to consider and to dismiss by respondent instead of an answer or comment.25
resolve a matter already endorsed
The core issues before us now are:
to this Court.20
1. whether there existed a conflict of interest in the cases represented and
Before delving into the core issues of this case, we need to address some preliminary handled by respondent, and
matters.
2. whether respondent properly withdrew his services as counsel of record in
Respondent argues that the alleged resolution of PRC and the special power of Civil Case No. 97-9865.
attorney given by Lumot A. Jalandoni to Humberto did not contemplate the filing of an
administrative complaint.21 Citing the Rules of Court, respondent said that:
Conflict Of Interest
[s]uch complaints are personal in nature and therefore, the filing of the same, cannot
be delegated by the alleged aggrieved party to any third person unless expressly Petitioners alleged that as an offshoot of representing conflicting interests, breach of
authorized by law. attorney-client confidentiality and deliberate withholding of records were committed by
respondent. To effectively unravel the alleged conflict of interest, we must look into
the cases involved.
We must note, however, the following:
In Civil Case No. 97-9865, respondent represented Lumot A. Jalandoni and Totti
SECTION 1. How instituted. – Proceedings for disbarment, suspension or discipline Anlap Gargoles. This was a case for the recovery of possession of property involving
of attorneys may be taken by the Supreme Court motu propio,  or by the Integrated Hotel Alhambra, a hotel owned by PRC.
Bar of the Philippines (IBP) upon the verified complaint of any person. The complaint
shall state clearly and concisely the facts complained of and shall be supported by
affidavits or persons having personal knowledge of the facts therein alleged and/or In BC I.S. No. 99-2192, Lim v. Vicente Delfin, Spouses Dennis and Carmen Jalbuena,
by such documents a may substantiate said facts. respondent was counsel for Delfin and the spouses Jalbuena. In this case, plaintiff
Cristina Lim sued the spouses Jalbuena and Delfin on the basis of two checks issued
by PRC for the construction of Hotel Alhambra. 26 The corporate records allegedly
reflected that the contractor, AAQ Sales and Construction (AAQSC), was already paid

4
in full yet Amy Albert Que of AAQSC still filed a collection case against PRC for an The rule on conflict of interests covers not only cases in which confidential
unpaid balance.27 In her complaint-affidavit, Cristina averred: communications have been confided but also  those in which no confidence has been
bestowed or will be used.33
11. That it was respondent Carmen J. Jalbuena, who took advantage of [her]
signatures in blank in DBP Check Nos. 0865590 and 0865591, and who filled up the Another test of the inconsistency of interests is whether the acceptance of a new
spaces of the payee, date and amount without the knowledge and consent of any relation will prevent an attorney from the full discharge of his duty of undivided fidelity
officer of the corporation and [herself], after which she caused the delivery of the and loyalty to his client or invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double-dealing in the
same checks to her husband Dennis Jalbuena, who encashed without [their] performance thereof, and also whether he will be called upon in his new relation to
knowledge and consent, and received the proceeds of the same checks… (as use against his first client any knowledge acquire in the previous employment. The
evidenced by his signature in receipt of payment on the dorsal side of the said first part of the rule refers to cases in which the opposing parties are present clients
checks) with the indispensable participation and cooperation of respondent Vicente B. either in the same action or in a totally unrelated case; the second part pertains to
Delfin, the Asst. Vice President and Branch Head of UCPB….28 those in which the adverse party against whom the attorney appears is his former
client in a matter which is related, directly or indirectly, to the present
Notably, in his comment, respondent stated: controversy.34 (emphasis ours)

There was a possibility of conflict of interest because by this time, or one The rule prohibits a lawyer from representing new clients whose interests oppose
month before [he] filed [his] Motion to Withdraw, Mrs. Jalandoni /Penta Resorts those of a former client in any manner, whether or not they are parties in the same
Corporation, Mr. Lim, through his wife, Cristina J. Lim, by another counsel, Atty. action or in totally unrelated cases. The cases here directly or indirectly involved the
Lorenzo S. Alminaza, filed a criminal complaint against the spouses Dennis and parties’ connection to PRC, even if neither PRC nor Lumot A. Jalandoni was
Carmen J. Jalbuena on March 26, 1999… under BC-I.S. Case No. 99-2192.29 specifically named as party-litigant in some of the cases mentioned.

Similarly, in BC I.S. Nos. 00-1370, 2000-2304, 2000-2343, 00-2125, 00-2230, 00-880, An attorney owes to his client undivided allegiance. After being retained and receiving
respondent positioned himself against PRC’s interests. the confidences of the client, he cannot, without the free and intelligent consent of his
client, act both for his client and for one whose interest is adverse to, or conflicting
with that of his client in the same general matter…. The prohibition stands even if
And, in Civil Case No. 99-10660, a collection case against PRC, Atty. Alminaza of the adverse interest is very slight; neither is it material that the intention and
PRC was alarmed by the appearance of respondent at the table in court for AAQSC’s motive of the attorney may have been honest.35 (emphasis ours)
counsel.30
The representation by a lawyer of conflicting interests, in the absence of the written
Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) highlights the need consent of all parties concerned after a full disclosure of the facts, constitutes
for candor, fairness and loyalty in all the dealings of lawyers with their clients. Rule professional misconduct which subjects the lawyer to disciplinary action.36
15.03 of the CPR aptly provides:
Even respondent’s alleged effort to settle the existing controversy among the family
Rule 15.03 – A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written members37 was improper because the written consent of all concerned was still
consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts. required.38 A lawyer who acts as such in settling a dispute cannot represent any of the
parties to it.39
It is only upon strict compliance with the condition of full disclosure of facts that a
lawyer may appear against his client; otherwise, his representation of conflicting Withdrawal As Counsel In Civil Case No. 97-9865
interests is reprehensible.31 Conflict of interest may be determined in this manner:
The next bone of contention was the propriety of respondent’s withdrawal as counsel
There is representation of conflicting interests if the acceptance of the new retainer for Lumot A. Jalandoni in Civil Case No. 97-9865 to fulfill an alleged retainership
will require the attorney to do anything which will injuriously affect his first agreement with the spouses Jalbuena in a suit by PRC, through Cristina Lim, against
client in any matter in which he represents him and also whether he will be called the Jalbuenas and Delfin (BC I.S. No. 99-2192). In his December 1, 2000 comment,
upon in his new relation, to use against his first client any knowledge acquired respondent stated that it was he who was not notified of the hiring of Atty. Alminaza
through their connection.32 (emphasis ours) as the new counsel in that case and that he withdrew from the case with the
knowledge of Lumot A. Jalandoni and with leave of court.

The rule on termination of attorney-client relations may be summarized as follows:

5
The relation of attorney and client may be terminated by the client, by the lawyer or by That Mrs. Jalandoni continued with Atty. Alminaza’s professional engagement on her
the court, or by reason of circumstances beyond the control of the client or the lawyer. behalf despite respondent’s withdrawal did not absolve the latter of the consequences
The termination of the attorney-client relationship entails certain duties on the part of of his unprofessional conduct, specially in view of the conflicting interests already
the client and his lawyer.40 discussed. Respondent himself stated that his withdrawal from Civil Case No. 97-
9865 was due to the "possibility of a conflict of interest."48
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 Be that as it may, the records do not support the claim that respondent improperly
CPR reads: collected P5,000 from petitioner. Undoubtedly, respondent provided professional
services to Lumot A. Jalandoni. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the documents
Canon 22 – A lawyer shall withdraw his services only for good cause and upon notice belonging to Mrs. Jalandoni were deliberately withheld. The right of an attorney to
appropriate in the circumstances. retain possession of a client’s documents, money or other property which may have
lawfully come into his possession in his professional capacity, until his lawful fees and
disbursements have been fully paid, is well-established.49
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 Finally, we express our utter dismay with Lim’s apparent use of his wife’s community
who desires to retire from an action without the written consent of his client must file a tax certificate number in his complaint for disbarment against respondent.50 This is
petition for withdrawal in court.42 He must serve a copy of his petition upon his client not, however, the forum to discuss this lapse.
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 WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, respondent Atty. Nicanor V. Villarosa is
such move. He admitted that he withdrew as counsel on April 26, 1999, which hereby found GUILTY of violating Canon 15 and Canon 22 of the Code of
withdrawal was supposedly approved by the court on April 28, 1999. The conformity Professional Responsibility and is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one (1)
of Mrs. Jalandoni was only presumed by Atty. Villarosa because of the appearance of year, effective upon receipt of this decision, with a STERN WARNING that a
Atty. Alminaza in court, supposedly in his place. repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.

[A client] may discharge his attorney at any time with or without cause and thereafter Let a copy of this resolution be entered into the records of respondent and furnished
employ another lawyer who may then enter his appearance. Thus, it has been held to the Office of the Clerk of Court, the Office of the Bar Confidant, the Integrated Bar
that a client is free to change his counsel in a pending case and thereafter retain of the Philippines, and all courts in the Philippines, for their information and guidance.
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 SO ORDERED.

The appearance of Atty. Alminaza in fact was not even to substitute for respondent RENATO C. CORONA
but to act as additional counsel.45 Mrs. Jalandoni’s conformity to having an additional Associate Justice
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

counsel46 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)