LEDESMA V CLIMACO

FACTS:

Ledesma is counsel de parte of one accused. Thereafter, he was appointed as Election Registrar of Cadiz, Negros Occidental by
COMELEC
Ledesma withdrew as counsel on the basis that his appointment as Election Registrar would require full time service as well as on
the volume or pressure of work will prevent him from handling adequately the defense.
Judge Climaco denied his motion, and even appointed him as counsel de officio of the accused.

ISSUE:
WoN the withdrawal of Ledesma should be allowed
HELD:
No.
RATIO:
1.

2.

3.
4.

There is obvious reluctance of Ledesma to comply with his responsibilities as counsel de oficio. Then, even assuming that he
continues his position, his volume of work is likely to be very much less than present. There is no excuse for him to shirk from his
obligation as member of the bar, who expects to remain in good standing, should fulfill.
Ledesma was not mindful of his obligation as counsel de oficio. He ought to know that membership in the bar is a privilege burdened
with conditions. Being appointed as counsel de oficio requires a high degree of fidelity (law is a profession and not a mere trade).
Requires counsel of repute and eminence.
In criminal cases, right to counsel is absolute. No fair hearing unless the accused be given an opportunity to be heard by counsel.
The denial by Judge Climaco was due to the principal effect to delay the case (case has already been postponed for 8 times)