The plaintiff filed an objection to the motion of the defense counsel, Atty. Kenneth P. Rosal, to withdraw as counsel for the defendants. The plaintiff argues that [1] withdrawal is not allowed under the circumstances according to the Code of Professional Responsibility and [2] withdrawal would cause injustice to the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff requests that the court denies the motion to withdraw filed by the defense counsel.
The plaintiff filed an objection to the motion of the defense counsel, Atty. Kenneth P. Rosal, to withdraw as counsel for the defendants. The plaintiff argues that [1] withdrawal is not allowed under the circumstances according to the Code of Professional Responsibility and [2] withdrawal would cause injustice to the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff requests that the court denies the motion to withdraw filed by the defense counsel.
The plaintiff filed an objection to the motion of the defense counsel, Atty. Kenneth P. Rosal, to withdraw as counsel for the defendants. The plaintiff argues that [1] withdrawal is not allowed under the circumstances according to the Code of Professional Responsibility and [2] withdrawal would cause injustice to the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff requests that the court denies the motion to withdraw filed by the defense counsel.
PSI LEOPOLDO MACALINDOL, Replevin and / or P02 LIBORIO VELASCO Sum of money PINSP MERVIN CLARET AND ROQUE EDUARDO VEGA Defendants. X-----------------------------X
OBJECTION TO THE MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL OF DEFENDANTS MACALINDOL, CLARET AND VELASCO
Comes now, the plaintiff through counsel, must respectfully avers that:
1.) The undersigned counsel received a copy of Motion to withdraw as counsel on 22 February 2013 file by Atty. Kenneth P. Rosal stating his desire to withdraw his appearance as counsel for the reason that he cannot effectively handle the case for the defendants and wit the manifestation that he has not obtained their written conformity on his intent to withdraw as counsel;
2.) The plaintiff has previously filed as EX PARTE MOTION TO LEAVE TO POST A REPLEVIN BOND 1 on 19 February 2013 stating therein that the acts of the defendants have shown their incompetence and neglect in the performance of their official duties and that neither of or their counsel attended the hearing scheduled on 16 January 2013 validating the observations of the plaintiff;
3.) Canon 22 of the Code of Professional Responsibility enumerates the cases wherein a lawyer may be allowed to withdraw his services with stating therein clearly that it shall only be for good cause and upon notice to his client, to wit:
1 A copy of which is hereto attached as Annex A and made integral part hereof; Page 2 of 4
CANON 22. A LAWYER SHALL WITHDRAW HIS SERVICES ONLY FOR GOOD CAUSE AND UPON NOTICE APPROPRIATE IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES.
Rule 22.01 A lawyer may withdraw his services in any of the following cases:
a.) When the client pursues an illegal or immoral course of conduct in connection with the matter he is handling;
b.) When the client insist that the lawyer pursue conduct violative of these canons and rules;
c.) When his inability to work with co-counsel will not promote the best interest of the client;
d.) When the mental or physical condition of the lawyer renders it difficult for him to carry out the employment effectively;
e.) When the client deliberately fails to pay the fees for the services or fails to comply with the retainer agreement;
f.) When the lawyer is elected or appointed to a public office; and
g.) Other similar cases.
Rule 22.02 A lawyer who withdraws or is discharged shall, subject to a retaining lien, immediately turn over all papers and property to which the client is entitled, and shall cooperate with his successor in the orderly transfer of the matter, including all information necessary for the proper handling of the matter.
4.) While the right of the client to terminate his relationship with counsel is universal and absolute, 2 it is not so vice versa. It is rudimentary that membership to the bar is a privilege burdened with conditions and among the fundamental rules of ethics is the principle that an attorney who undertakes to conduct an action impliedly stipulates to carry it to its termination 3 ;
5.) Further, counsel who intends to formally withdraw his appearance has no right to pressure that the court would grant his withdrawal and must therefore still appear on the date of hearing as held in Visitacion vs. Manit. 4 The motion filed by Atty. Kenneth P. Rosal does not indicate a notice of or a request for hearing;
2 Rinconada Telephone Company, Inc. vs. Buenviaje, 184 SCRA 701. 3 Stork vs. Mishel, 6 ALR 174. 4 Visitacion vs. Manit, 27 SCRA 523. Page 3 of 4
6.) Counsel for defendants has direct contract with them as compared to the plaintiff who is likely to suffer an injustice considering the fact that their offices have refused to receive pleadings addressed to them or given information on their current geographical assignments in the Highway Patrol Group;
WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court that the motion to withdraw as counsel filed by Atty. Kenneth P. Rosal be denied for reasons stated above and for the injustice and injury such might cause to the plaintiff.
Dipolog City, 25 February 2013.
CONCHA LAW OFFICES
By:
DIANA CHARLETTE G. CONCHA Roll No. 55244 PTR No. 0576045 01/03/2013 IBP Lifetime No. 07657 MCLE Compliance No. III-00180684
Page 4 of 4
REQUEST FOR AND NOTICE OF HEARING
ATTY. IAN CAMPISEO Branch Clerk of Court Regional Trial Court Branch 9, Dipolog City
Sir:
Kindly set the foregoing EX PARTE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO REPLEVIN BOND for consideration of the honorable Court immediately upon receipt hereof. Thank you.