Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Leonor
Canay)
Note: Sir, I havent found any jurisprudence regarding this matter. But the
following jurisprudence cited herein might be helpful.
While the context of the above-quoted provision of the Rules that the formal
appearance of an attorney shall be filed with the court and served upon the
parties affected thereby clearly indicate that the appearance of such an
attorney shall be in writing, the underlying reason for such requirement is that
to enable the officers concerned to effectively serve processes on the attorney of
record. Accordingly, the fact that no formal written entry of appearance has
been filed by a new collaborating counsel or that the same was filed only after
he had filed certain pleadings could not seriously affect, much less nullify the
validity of the acts and the pleadings filed by the appearing attorney - as
wrongly held by respondent judge. (At most, the judge could compel the
attorney to file a formal written notice of appearance, in addition to his
appearance through the pleadings filed by him.)
It has thus been categorically ruled in Ong Ching vs. Ramolete, etc. et al. that
"while it may be desirable in the in interest of an orderly conduct of judicial
proceedings that a counsel for a party should file with the court his formal
written appearance in the case, before filing a pleading therein, or mention in
said pleading that he is submitting the same in collaboration with the counsel
of record, the mere circumstance that such acts were not done does not
warrant the conclusion that the pleading filed by such counsel has no legal
effect whatsoever. "
It has been held that as a logical corollary of the presumption that a lawyer is
authorized to appear for the party he represents, it is also presumed that the
lawyer is authorized by, and has conferred with, his client regarding the case
before he files an important responsive pleading for and on behalf of the latter.
Respondent judge clearly ignored the oft-repeated principles laid down by the
Court that "(A) rigid adherence to the technical rules of procedure disregards
the fundamental aim of procedure to serve as an aid to justice, not as a means
for its frustration, and the objective of the Rules of Court to afford litigants
just, speedy and inexpensive determination of their controversy. Thus,
excusable imperfections of form and technicalities of procedure or lapses in the
literal or rigid observance of a procedural rule or non- jurisdictional deadline
provided therein should be overlooked and brushed aside as trivial and
indecisive in the interest of fair play and justice when public policy is not
involved, no prejudice has been caused the adverse party and the court has not
been deprived of its authority or jurisdiction." 4
The Court does not look with favor on such disregard of basic rules and
principles by the lower courts which needlessly compel the aggrieved parties to
resort to the higher courts for redress and take up the time which they could
well devote to more meritorious cases, and it will administratively call judges to
account therefor i appropriate cases which manifest gross ignorance of the law
or incompetence. While the Court has held that it would not hold judges
administratively liable for honest errors of judgment, this case can hardly be
said to fall within such a category.
(2) Dr. Domiciano F. Villahermosa, Sr., vs. Atty. Isidro L. Caracol A.C.
No. 7325 January 21, 2015
The Rules of Court under Rule 138, Section 21 provides for a presumption of a
lawyers appearance on behalf of his client, hence:
In Land Bank of the Philippines v. Pamintuan Devt. Co., this Court said that
while a lawyer is not required to present proof of his representation, when a
court requires that he show such authorization, it is imperative that he show
his authority to act. Thus:
A lawyer is not even required to present a written authorization from the client.
In fact, the absence of a formal notice of entry of appearance will not invalidate
the acts performed by the counsel in his clients name. However, [a] court, on
its own initiative or on motion of the other party may require a lawyer to
adduce authorization from the client.
Lawyers must be mindful that an attorney has no power to act as counsel for a
person without being retained nor may he appear in court without being
employed unless by leave of court. If an attorney appears on a clients behalf
without a retainer or the requisite authority neither the litigant whom he
purports to represent nor the adverse party may be bound or affected by his
appearance unless the purported client ratifies or is estopped to deny his
assumed authority. If a lawyer corruptly or willfully appears as an attorney for
a party to a case without authority, he may be disciplined or punished for
contempt as an officer of the court who has misbehaved in his official
transaction.
II. That the power of contempt should be used lightly and with
caution by the courts
(1) Hon. Medel Arnaldo B. Belen vs. Josef Alberts Comilang G.R. No.
184487 February 27, 2013
All told, based on the circumstances disclosed in the records, the CA failed to
dutifully afford Judge Belen his right to be heard. Such failure consists of a
serious procedural defect that effectively nullifies the indirect contempt
proceedings.
The power to punish for contempt is inherent in all courts and is essential to
the preservation of order in judicial proceedings and to the enforcement of
judgments, orders, and mandates of the court, and consequently, to the due
administration of justice.
Thus, contempt proceedings has a dual function: (1) vindication of public
interest by punishment of contemptuous conduct; and (2) coercion to compel
the contemnor to do what the law requires him to uphold the power of the
Court, and also to secure the rights of the parties to a suit awarded by the
Court.
In our jurisdiction, the Rules of Court penalizes two types of contempt, namely
direct contempt and indirect contempt.
Section 4, Rule 71 of the same Rules provides how proceedings for indirect
contempt should be commenced, thus:
As can be gleaned above, the provisions of the Rules are unequivocal. Indirect
contempt proceedings may be initiated only in two ways: (1) motu proprio by
the court; or (2) through a verified petition and upon compliance with the
requirements for initiatory pleadings. Procedural requirements as outlined
must be complied with.
It bears to stress that the power to punish for contempt is not limitless. It must
be used sparingly with caution, restraint, judiciousness, deliberation, and due
regard to the provisions of the law and the constitutional rights of the
individual.
The limitations in the exercise of the power to punish for indirect contempt are
delineated by the procedural guidelines specified under Section 4, Rule 71 of
the Rules of Court. Strict compliance with such procedural guidelines is
mandatory considering that proceedings against person alleged to be guilty of
contempt are commonly treated as criminal in nature.
(3) Pedro Gamboa vs. Hon. Jose Teodoro G.R. No. L-4893 May 13, 1952
Courts should be slow in jailing people for non-compliance with their orders.
Only in cases of clear and contumacious refusal to obey should the power be
exercised. A bona fide misunderstanding of the terms of the order of the
procedural rules should not immediately cause the institution of contempt
proceedings. "The power to punish for contempt of court should be exercised
on the preservative and not on the vindictive principle. Only occasionally
should the court invoke its inherent power in order to retain that respect
without which the administration of justice must falter or fail." Such power
being "drastic and extra ordinary in its nature . . . should not be restored to . . .
unless necessary in the interest of justice."
(4) Jose S. Santos vs. Court of First Instance of Cebu G.R. Nos. 57190-
91 May 18, 1990
Although we agree with respondent judge that such acts are contumacious,
nevertheless the same cannot be summarily punished with abuse of discretion
and without due process of law. X x x
(5) Maria Lourdes Paredes-Garcia vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 120654
September 11, 1996
The power, however, is not limitless. It must be used sparingly with caution,
restraint, judiciousness, deliberation, and due regard to the provisions of the
law and the constitutional rights of the individual. It should be exercised on the
preservative and not on the vindictive principle. Being drastic and
extraordinary in its nature, it should not be resorted to unless necessary in the
interest of justice. For, as observed in People vs. Estenzo: 19
Indeed, the contempt power could easily tempt a judge to make its exercise
nothing more than a camouflage for a wounded pride, a burning prejudice,
revenge, a misplaced passion, or selfish motives.