ZOILO E. CADELIÑA, COMPLAINANT, VS. GENOVEVO Q. MANHILOT, RESPONDENT.

Cadeliña versus Manhilot

The Case

This is an administrative complaint filed with the Supreme Court by Zoilo Cadeliña, a lawyer, against his fellow lawyer Genovevo Manhilot. Cadeliña charges that Manhilot entered his appearance as counsel for a client in an intestate proceeding while Cadeliña was still the counsel of record, and that this amounted to deceit, malpractice, dishonest conduct, and gross misconduct. The case matters because it tests the boundary between a client's absolute right to change lawyers and the professional duty of the incoming lawyer toward the lawyer he replaces. It also shows the Court resolving a countercharge even after the complainant has died, on the ground that a lawyer's good name is the most precious legacy he can leave his family.

Procedural History

The complaint was filed directly with the Supreme Court as an administrative matter against a member of the Bar. The Court required the respondent to comment, and he did, raising in turn his own countercharge against the complainant. The Court then referred the case to the Solicitor General for investigation, report, and recommendation. The Solicitor General conducted the investigation, received the evidence of both sides, and submitted his report recommending dismissal of the complaint. The case was then resolved by the Supreme Court itself, which adopted the recommendation.

Facts

In the intestate estate proceedings of Don Antonio Rodriguez before the Court of First Instance of Manila, Jose Rodriguez and others were the petitioners. The complainant, Zoilo Cadeliña, served as counsel for Jose Rodriguez in those proceedings. While the proceedings were pending, Cadeliña learned that he had been replaced, without formal notice to him, by the respondent, Genovevo Manhilot.

It turned out that Jose Rodriguez had decided to discharge Cadeliña and hire Manhilot. Before entering his appearance, Manhilot tried sincerely to locate Cadeliña to obtain his conformity. He accompanied Rodriguez to Cadeliña's law office, but Cadeliña no longer held office there. He advised Rodriguez to write to Cadeliña by mail, but the letter was returned unclaimed. Only after all these attempts failed did Manhilot file his notice of appearance, which bore the conformity of Jose Rodriguez, dated the eighteenth of October 1978 but filed on the twenty third of October 1978.

Cadeliña then filed this administrative complaint. Manhilot answered and countercharged that Cadeliña had appeared for Jose Rodriguez without authority. Cadeliña attached a contract of engagement as attorney dated the twenty eighth of July 1978, signed and acknowledged by Jose Rodriguez and Rosalina Pellosis Eco, expressly authorizing his firm to represent them in the proceedings. Manhilot did not deny or attack the genuineness of that contract. Cadeliña died on the twenty fifth of November 1981, while the case was pending.

Issues

• Whether or not the entry of appearance of respondent Manhilot as counsel for Jose Rodriguez, while complainant Cadeliña was still counsel of record, constituted deceit, malpractice, dishonesty, or gross misconduct warranting administrative sanctions against him.
• Whether or not complainant Cadeliña acted as counsel for Jose Rodriguez without the latter's authority, as charged in the respondent's countercharge.

Applicable Provisions

Section 26 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court provides:

An attorney may retire from any action or special proceeding without the written consent of his client filed in court. However, a client may at any time dismiss his attorney or substitute another in his place.

This provision is the measure of the case: it gives the client the absolute right to dismiss his lawyer and substitute another, and it is the client's act, not the incoming lawyer's, that effects the change.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court agreed with the Solicitor General and dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. The substitution of Cadeliña by Jose Rodriguez, with Manhilot as the new counsel, was authorized and within the client's prerogative. There was no evidence that Manhilot influenced or prevailed upon Rodriguez to discharge Cadeliña. On the contrary, Manhilot exerted sincere effort to locate Cadeliña and get his conformity before filing his notice of appearance. Any grievance of the complainant should be directed against the client Rodriguez, not against the respondent. The Court quoted the governing rule:

It is a rule that an attorney may not retire from any action or special proceeding without the written consent of his client filed in court. However, a client may at any time dismiss his attorney or substitute another in his place.

On the second issue, the Court resolved the countercharge even though it had become moot and academic by reason of the complainant's death. The Court held that the countercharge was clearly without merit, because the contract of engagement signed and acknowledged by Jose Rodriguez expressly authorized Cadeliña's firm to represent the petitioners, and Manhilot did not deny or attack its genuineness. The complainant's family was entitled to clear his name and reputation as a lawyer.

Doctrine

A client may at any time dismiss his attorney or substitute another in his place; the lawyer may not retire without the written consent of his client filed in court. The incoming lawyer who enters his appearance after the client has exercised this right commits no misconduct, provided he made sincere efforts to notify the lawyer he replaced. The remedy of the replaced lawyer, if any, lies against the client, not against the new counsel. A disbarment case is imbued with public interest, and a lawyer is entitled to the full protection of his name; thus a countercharge may be resolved on the merits even after the complainant's death, so that the deceased lawyer's family may clear his reputation.

Disposition

The Court dismissed the complaint against Genovevo Manhilot for lack of merit, and dismissed the countercharge against Zoilo Cadeliña, now deceased, as moot and academic and for lack of merit.

Remember This

The single line to memorize: the client may dismiss his lawyer at any time, and the replaced lawyer's grievance lies against the client, not against the new counsel. Examiners use this case on the client's right of substitution under Section 26 of Rule 138, and on the rule that a disbarment proceeding is imbued with public interest and survives the complainant's death for the protection of a lawyer's name.