2/3/2017 G.R.No.

L23815

TodayisFriday,February03,2017

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila

SECONDDIVISION

G.R.No.L23815June28,1974

ADELINOH.LEDESMA,petitioner,
vs.
HON.RAFAELC.CLIMACO,PresidingJudgeoftheCourtofFirstInstanceofNegrosOccidental,Branch
I,SilayCity,respondent.

AdelinoH.Ledesmainhisownbehalf.

Hon.RafaelC.Climacoinhisownbehalf.

FERNANDO,J.:p

WhatisassailedinthiscertiorariproceedingisanorderofrespondentJudgedenyingamotionfiledbypetitioner
tobeallowedtowithdrawascounseldeoficio.1Oneofthegroundsforsuchamotionwashisallegationthatwithhis
appointment as Election Registrar by the Commission on Elections, he was not in a position to devote full time to the
defense of the two accused. The denial by respondent Judge of such a plea, notwithstanding the conformity of the
defendants,wasdue"itsprincipaleffect[being]todelaythiscase."2Itwaslikewisenotedthattheprosecutionhadalready
restedandthatpetitionerwaspreviouslycounseldeparte,hisdesignationintheformercategorybeingpreciselytoprotect
himinhisnewpositionwithoutprejudicingtheaccused.Itcannotbeplausiblyassertedthatsuchfailuretoallowwithdrawal
of de oficio counsel could ordinarily be characterized as a grave abuse of discretion correctible by certiorari. There is,
however, the overriding concern for the right to counsel of the accused that must be taken seriously into consideration. In
appropriatecases,itshouldtiltthebalance.Thisisnotoneofthem.Whatiseasilydiscerniblewastheobviousreluctance
ofpetitionertocomplywiththeresponsibilitiesincumbentonthecounseldeoficio.Then,too,evenontheassumptionthat
he continues in his position, his volume of work is likely to be very much less at present. There is not now the slightest
pretextforhimtoshirkanobligationamemberofthebar,whoexpectstoremainingoodstanding,shouldfulfill.Thepetition
isclearlywithoutmerit.

According to the undisputed facts, petitioner, on October 13, 1964, was appointed Election Registrar for the
MunicipalityofCadiz,ProvinceofNegrosOccidental.Thenandthere,hecommencedtodischargeitsduties.As
he was counsel departe for one of the accused in a case pending in the sala of respondent Judge, he filed a
motiontowithdrawassuch.NotonlydidrespondentJudgedenysuchmotion,buthealsoappointedhimcounsel
de oficio for the two defendants. Subsequently, on November 3, 1964, petitioner filed an urgent motion to be
allowed to withdraw as counsel deoficio, premised on the policy of the Commission on Elections to require full
time service as well as on the volume or pressure of work of petitioner, which could prevent him from handling
adequatelythedefense.RespondentJudge,inthechallengedorderofNovember6,1964,deniedsaidmotion.A
motionforreconsiderationhavingprovedfutile,heinstitutedthiscertiorariproceeding.3

Asnotedattheoutset,thepetitionmustfail.

1.The assailed order of November 6, 1964 denying the urgent motion of petitioner to withdraw as counsel de
oficiospeaksforitself.ItbeganwithareminderthatacrimewasallegedlycommittedonFebruary17,1962,with
theproceedingshavingstartedinthemunicipalcourtofCadizonJuly11,1962.ThenrespondentJudgespokeof
his order of October 16, 1964 which reads thus: "In view of the objection of the prosecution to the motion for
postponementofOctober15,1964(allegingthatcounselfortheaccusedcannotcontinueappearinginthiscase
withouttheexpressauthorityoftheCommissiononElections)andsinceaccordingtotheprosecutionthereare
two witnesses who are ready to take the stand, after which the government would rest, the motion for
postponement is denied. When counsel for the accused assumed office as Election Registrar on October 13,
1964, he knew since October 2, 1964 that the trial would be resumed today. Nevertheless, in order not to
prejudice the civil service status of counsel for the accused, he is hereby designated counsel de oficio for the
accused. The defense obtained postponements on May 17, 1963, June 13, 1963, June 14, 1963, October 28,
1963, November 27, 1963, February 11, 1964, March 9, 1964, June 8, 1964 July 26, 1964, and September 7,
1964."4 Reference was then made to another order of February 11, 1964: "Upon petition of Atty. Adelino H. Ledesma,
allegingindisposition,thecontinuationofthetrialofthiscaseisherebytransferredtoMarch9,1964at8:30inthemorning.
Thedefenseisremindedthatatitsinstance,thiscasehasbeenpostponedatleasteight(8)times,andthatthegovernment
witnesses have to come all the way from Manapala." 5 After which, it was noted in such order that there was no
incompatibilitybetweenthedutyofpetitionertotheaccusedandtothecourtandtheperformanceofhistaskasanelection
registrar of the Commission on Elections and that the ends of justice "would be served by allowing and requiring Mr.
Ledesmatocontinueascounseldeoficio,sincetheprosecutionhasalreadyresteditscase."6

2.Whatisreadilyapparenttherefore,isthatpetitionerwaslessthandulymindfulofhisobligationascounselde
oficio.Heoughttohaveknownthatmembershipinthebarisaprivilegeburdenedwithconditions.Itcouldbethat
for some lawyers, especially the neophytes in the profession, being appointed counsel de oficio is an irksome
chore.Forthoseholdingsuchbelief,itmaycomeasasurprisethatcounselofreputeandofeminencewelcome
suchanopportunity.Itmakesevenmoremanifestthatlawisindeedaprofessiondedicatedtotheidealofservice
and not a mere trade. It is understandable then why a high degree of fidelity to duty is required of one so
designated.ArecentstatementofthedoctrineisfoundinPeoplev.Daban:7"Thereisneedanewinthisdisciplinary
proceedingtolaystressonthefundamentalpostulatethatmembershipinthebarcarrieswithitaresponsibilitytoliveupto

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1974/jun1974/gr_l_23815_1974.html 1/3
2/3/2017 G.R.No.L23815
itsexactingstandard.Thelawisaprofession,notatradeoracraft.Thoseenrolledinitsranksarecalledupontoaidinthe
performance of one of the basic purposes of the State, the administration of justice. To avoid any frustration thereof,
especially in the case of an indigent defendant, a lawyer may be required to act as counsel de oficio. The fact that his
servicesarerenderedwithoutremunerationshouldnotoccasionadiminutioninhiszeal.Ratherthecontrary.Thisisnot,of
course, to ignore that other pressing matters do compete for his attention. After all, he has his practice to attend to. That
circumstancepossessesahighdegreeofrelevancesincealawyerhastolivecertainlyhecannotaffordeithertoneglect
hispayingcases.Nonetheless,whatisincumbentuponhimascounseldeoficiomustbefulfilled."8

Soithasbeenfromthe1905decisionofInreRoblesLahesa,9whererespondentwasdeoficio counsel, the opinion

penned by Justice Carson making clear: "This Court should exact from its officers and subordinates the most scrupulous
performance of their official duties, especially when negligence in the performance of those duties necessarily results in
delaysintheprosecutionofcriminalcases...."10JusticeSanchezinPeoplev.Estebia11reiteratedsuchaviewinthese
words:"Itistruethatheisacourtappointedcounsel.Butwedosaythatassuchcounseldeoficio,hehasashighaduty
totheaccusedasoneemployedandpaidbydefendanthimself.Because,asinthecaseofthelatter,hemustexercisehis
best efforts and professional ability in behalf of the person assigned to his care. He is to render effective assistance. The
accuseddefendant expects of him due diligence, not mere perfunctory representation. For, indeed a lawyer who is a
vanguardinthebastionofjusticeisexpectedtohaveabiggerdoseofsocialconscienceandalittlelessofselfinterest."12

Theweaknessofthepetitionisthusquiteevident.

3.IfrespondentJudgewererequiredtoanswerthepetition,itwasonlyduetotheapprehensionthatconsidering
the frame of mind of a counsel loath and reluctant to fulfill his obligation, the welfare of the accused could be
prejudiced. His right to counsel could in effect be rendered nugatory. Its importance was rightfully stressed by
ChiefJusticeMoraninPeoplev.Holgadointhesewords:"Incriminalcasestherecanbenofairhearingunless
theaccusedbegivenanopportunitytobeheardbycounsel.Therighttobeheardwouldbeoflittleavailifitdoes
notincludetherighttobeheardbycounsel.Eventhemostintelligentoreducatedmanmayhavenoskillinthe
scienceoflaw,particularlyintherulesofprocedure,andwithoutcounsel,hemaybeconvictednotbecauseheis
guiltybutbecausehedoesnotknowhowtoestablishhisinnocence.Andthiscanhappenmoreeasilytopersons
who are ignorant or uneducated. It is for this reason that the right to be assisted by counsel is deemed so
importantthatithasbecomeaconstitutionalrightanditissoimplementedthatunderrulesofprocedureitisnot
enoughfortheCourttoappriseanaccusedofhisrighttohaveanattorney,itisnotenoughtoaskhimwhether
he desires the aid of an attorney, but it is essential that the court should assign one deoficio for him if he so
desiresandheispoororgranthimareasonabletimetoprocureanattorneyofhis
own."13SoitwasunderthepreviousOrganicActs.14ThepresentConstitutionisevenmoreemphatic.For,inadditionto
reiteratingthattheaccused"shallenjoytherighttobeheardbyhimselfandcounsel,"15 there is this new provision: "Any
personunderinvestigationforthecommissionofanoffenseshallhavetherighttoremainsilentandtocounsel,andtobe
informedofsuchright.Noforce,violence,threat,intimidation,oranyothermeanswhichvitiatesthefreewillshallbeused
againsthim.Anyconfessionobtainedinviolationofthissectionshallbeinadmissibleinevidence."16

Thus is made manifest the indispensable role of a member of the Bar in the defense of an accused. Such a
consideration could have sufficed for petitioner not being allowed to withdraw as counsel de oficio. For he did
betraybyhismoveshislackofenthusiasmforthetaskentrustedtohim,toputmattersmildly.Hedidpointthough
tohisresponsibilityasanelectionregistrar.Assuminghisgoodfaith,nosuchexcusecouldbeavailednow.There
is not likely at present, and in the immediate future, an exorbitant demand on his time. It may likewise be
assumed,consideringwhathasbeensetforthabove,thatpetitionerwouldexerthimselfsufficientlytoperformhis
task as defense counsel with competence, if not with zeal, if only to erase doubts as to his fitness to remain a
memberoftheprofessioningoodstanding.Theadmonitionisevertimelyforthoseenrolledintheranksoflegal
practitionersthattherearetimes,andthisisoneofthem,whendutytocourtandtoclienttakesprecedenceover
thepromptingsofselfinterest.

WHEREFORE,thepetitionforcertiorariisdismissed.Costsagainstpetitioner.

Zaldivar(Chairman),Antonio,FernandezandAquino,JJ.,concur.

Barredo,J.,tooknopart.

Footnotes

1Petition,AnnexB.

2Ibid,AnnexC.

3Petition,pars.39.

4Petition,AnnexC.

5Ibid.

6Ibid..

7L31429,January31,1972,43SCRA185.

8Ibid,186.Cf.Peoplev.Apduhan,L19491,Aug.30,1968,24SCRA798Peoplev.Solacito,L
29209,Aug.25,1969,29SCRA61Peoplev.Serafica,L2909293,Aug.28,1969,29SCRA123
Peoplev.Englatera,L30820,July31,1970,34SCRA245Peoplev.Aguilar,L30932,Jan.29,
1971,37SCRA115Peoplev.Estebia,L26868,July29,1971,40SCRA90Peoplev.Flores,L
32692,July30,1971,40SCRA230Peoplev.Alincastre,L29891,Aug.30,1971,40SCRA391
Peoplev.Valera,L30039Feb.8,1972,43SCRA207Peoplev.Francisco,L30763,June29,
1972,45SCRA451Peoplev.Espia,L33028,June30,1972,45SCRA614Peoplev.Esteves,L
34811,Aug.18,1972,46SCRA680Peoplev.Simeon,L33730,Sept.28,1972,47SCRA129
Peoplev.Daeng,L34091,Jan.30,1973,49SCRA221Peoplev.Ricalde,L34673,Jan.30,1973,
49SCRA228Peoplev.Martinez,L35353,April30,1973,50SCRA509Peoplev.Silvestre,L
33821,June22,1973,51SCRA286Peoplev.Busa,L32047,June25,1973,51SCRA317
Peoplev.Alamada,L34594,July13,1973,52SCRA103Peoplev.Andaya,L29644,July25,

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1974/jun1974/gr_l_23815_1974.html 2/3
2/3/2017 G.R.No.L23815

1973,52SCRA137Peoplev.Duque,L33267,Sept.27,1973,53SCRA132Peoplev.Saligan,L
35792,Nov.29,1973,54SCRA190Peoplev.Bacong,L36161,Dec.19,1973,54SCRA288.

94Phil.298.

10Ibid,300.

11L26868,February27,1969,27SCRA106.

12Ibid,109110,Cf.Javellanav.Lutero,L23956,July21,1967,20SCRA717Blanzav.Arcangel,
Adm.CaseNo.492,Sept.5,1967,21SCRA1.

1385Phil.752,756757(1950).

14Cf.UnitedStatesv.Gimeno,1Phil.236(1902)UnitedStatesv.Palisoc,4Phil.207(1905)
UnitedStatesv.GoLeng,21Phil.426(1912)UnitedStatesv.Laranja,21Phil.500(1912)United
Statesv.Ramirez,26Phil.616(1914)UnitedStatesv.Labial,27Phil.82(1914)UnitedStatesv.
Custan,28Phil.19(1914)UnitedStatesv.Kilayco,31Phil.371(1915)UnitedStatesv.Escalante,
36Phil.743(1917)Peoplev.Abuyen,52Phil.722(1929).

15Cf.ArticleIV,Section19.

16Section20.

TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1974/jun1974/gr_l_23815_1974.html 3/3