Case #4 – Zosa power of attorney will serve as written authority to represent her in pretrial

Petitioner: Lilia Barrera, rep by Miguel Logarta (Atty in fact)
Respondents: Hon. Francis Militante (CFI Cebu), Carmen Belleza, Eleuteria
Cabrera, Baldomero Hernani, Benjamin Sevilla and Lucas de la Calzada
Doctrines:
1. Sec 23, Rule 138 (ROC): xxx Attorneys cannot, without special authority,
compromise their client’s litigation.
2. Art 1878: Special powers of attorney are necessary in the following cases:
xxx (3) To compromise, xxx
3. The authority to compromise cannot be lightly presumed.
conferences, with power to compromise the case.
Further, the Counsel of the petitioner would like the Court to believe that he
was armed with special power of attorney, without showing the scope, extent
and limits of the authority granted him. And worse, the special power was
allegedly only executed by Miguel Logarta, not the petitioner herself. While
Rule 138, Sec 23 (ROC) does not mandate that special powers be in writing,
the Court expects that such powers be duly established by evidence other
than self-serving assertion of counsel that such authority was given to him.
The authority to compromise cannot be lightly presumed.

Additional reason of dismissal: Case was filed on Dec 13, 1978 but upto
Principal Lilia Barrera June 11, 1980, the pretrial stage has not yet been terminated despite the tact
Agent Miguel Logarta or Counsel that Barrera was duly notified.
Third Person Hon. Francis Militante/Court
Judge Militante, as the Court decided, did not act erroneously, or gravely
Facts: abused his discretion in denying the motion for reconsideration.

On Dec 13, 1978, Lilia Barrera filed for recovery of ownership and WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari is dismissed. Costs against the
possession of a parcel of land against Belleza and other respondents. The petitioner.
case, after many instances, was finally set for pretrial on June 11, 1980; but
neither Barrera nor her counsel appeared. Judge Militante issued the
dismissal order of the case.

Barrera motioned to reconsider the dismissal order stating that her counsel
(not her atty in fact), who was allegedly armed with “a special power of
attorney to appear at the pretrial and to enter into a compromise was a little
late” because “the secretary of the law office where counsel could pick up the
records of the case did not arrive early.” Attached was the Secretary’s
affidavit saying she was feverish that day. Barrera’s motion was denied by
Judge Militante. Barrera claims the Judge committed grave abuse of
discretion. Thus this case.

Issue:

Whether or not Barrera’s atty-in-fact or her counsel can compromise the case
absent her special powers.

Decision:

No. Private respondents claim, and unrefuted by Barrera, that in all pretrial
conferences scheduled by the lower court, Barrera has never appeared. Nor
does the records show that she had executed a special power of attorney in
favor of either her atty-in-fact Miguel Logarta or her counsel of record. Such