Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Sharuf To Macasaet Juris
Sharuf To Macasaet Juris
FACTS:
ssThis is a verified petition for certiorari, with a
prayer for a preliminary injunction filed by Samuel S.
Sharruf against Frank Bubla and the Hon. Arsenio
Solidum, Judge of the Court of First Instance of
Manila, Branch XVII, to set aside the latter's orders of
March 14 and April 11, 1960 in Civil Case No. 33461
denying petitioner's motion for new trial, for lack of
merit, and his motion for reconsideration thereof,
respectively, and his order of June 3, 1960
disallowing petitioner's appeal from the order of
denial of March 14, 1960 on the ground that the
order aforesaid was already final and executory, and
ordering its execution.
On August 15, 1957 respondent Bubla, a nonresident alien, through his counsel and legal
representative, William Quasha & Associates, filed a
complaint with the respondent court to compel
petitioner to render an accounting in connection with
a written contract entered into between them (Civil
Case No. 33461). Petitioner filed an answer denying
the material allegations of the complaint and setting
forth therein a counterclaim for damages, but on
September 17, 1958 his counsel filed a motion to
withdraw his appearance for the reason that he had
been unable to get in touch with him. The court
granted the motion.
When the case called for pre-trial on September 27,
1958, petitioner failed to appear, and the court set
the case for trial on the judgments an December 1,
1958. Notice thereof was sent to petitioner at his
address of record. After several postponements, the
hearing of the case was reset for March 6, 1959, but
petitioner again failed to appear either personally or
thru counsel, despite notice sent to him at his
address of record. Instead of proceeding with the trial
of the case as His Honor could have done he
directed respondent Bubla's counsel to exert efforts
to notify petitioner of the trial of the case on April 23,
1959. Upon petitioner's failure to appear when the
case was finally called for trial on that date, the court
received Bubla's evidence which consisted of Bubla's
deposition taken before the Philippine Consul,
Philippine Embassy at Sydney, Australia, and
documentary evidence relative to their contract,
ABAN VS ENAGE
FACTS:
This is a petition for certiorari and prohibition with
preliminary injunction filed by petitioners against
private respondents and Honorable Judge Manuel L.
Enage, District Judge of the Court of First Instance of
Agusan, to declare null and void the order of the
court dated July 29, 1968, issued in Civil Case No.
1005, ordering the cancellation of TCT No. RT 1693 in
the names of herein petitioners covering Lot No. 427
C-I (Subdivision Plan LRC-Psd-40107), on the ground
that the same was issued without or in excess of
jurisdiction.
The antecedent facts are as follows:
On August 21, 1964, a complaint was filed in the
Court of First Instance of Agusan, Branch 11, then
presided by the late Judge Montano Ortiz, docketed
as Civil Case No. 1005, entitled "Maria Balaga Severo
Malvar, Ariston Blanco, Domingo Macuno plaintiffs,
versus Pedro Cuenca, Moises Burdeos, Nestor
Burdeos, Deodoro Burdeos, Leonila Burdeos,
Remedios Burdeos, Leonardo Campana, Aprodito
Campana, Cleofe Campana, Lilia Campana, Alberto
Banjao, for himself and on behalf of the MinorsLuzminda, Clemencia, and Isabel, all surnamed
Banjao, Felix Arriola Sr., Leonardo Villafuerte, Lope C.
Jonco, Butuan City Rural Bank, Register of Deeds of
Butuan City, Land Registration Commissioner, Sixto
Martinez, Aurora C. Martinez, Celestino Udarbe and
Andres Aban, defendants," for Nullification and
Cancellation of Subdivision Plan LRC- Psd 37270 on
Lot No. 427 Cad. 84, Butuan City, TCT-RT 1584, TCTRT 1585 and Various Documents and for Damages
with Injunction (pp. 12- 17, rec.).
The complaint states that Celestino Udarbe and
Andres Aban are sued as parties-defendants "since
their consent to have them joined as partiesplaintiffs could not be secured. "
Andres Aban, as a defendant in the above-entitled
case, through counsel, filed a motion dated
September 1, 1964 to drop him from the complaint
as a misjoined party and, at the same time, moved
for the dismissal of the complaint (pp. 57-58, rec.).
II
FACTS:
With respect to the petition filed by Atty. Timoteo D.
Naldoza to record his attorney's lien and to consider
him as the principal counsel of record of herein
private respondents, suffice it to state that this Court
finds the petition meritorious.
While concededly, private respondents herein have
the right to dismiss their attorney with or without
cause, however, any change or substitution of
attorney must have to follow the procedure
prescribed by Rule 138, Section 26 of the Revised
Rules of Court.
Unless the formalities required by the Rules of -Court
on valid substitution of attorneys are complied with,
no substitution will be permitted and the attorney
who appeared last in the cause before such
application for substitution will be regarded as the
attorney of record and entitled to be notified of all
notices and pleadings and responsible for the
conduct of the case (Olivares vs. Leola 97 Phil. 352).
Specifically, We have ruled in several cases that "no
substitution of attorneys will be allowed unless the
following requisites concur: (1) there must be filed a
written application for substitution; (2) there must be
filed the written consent of the client to the
substitution; (3) there must be filed the written
consent of the attorney to be substituted, if such
consent can be obtained; (4) in case such written
consent cannot be procured, there must be filed with