ADELINO H. LEDESMA, petitioner, vs. HON. RAFAEL C.

CLIMACO, Presiding Judge of the Court

of First Instance of Negros Occidental, Branch I, Silay City, respondent. G.R. No. L-23815 June
28, 1974 FERNANDO, J

Nature of the case:

Original action in the SC, Petition for certiorari against the order of respondent Judge
denying a motion to be allowed to withdraw as counsel de oficio.

SC Decision:
The petition for certiorari is dismissed.

Legal Doctrine:
There was no incompatibility (conflict) between the duty of petitioner to the accused and to the
court and the performance of his task as an election registrar of the Commission on Elections and that the
ends of justice would be served by allowing and requiring Mr. Ledesma to continue as counsel de oficio,
since the prosecution has already rested its case. The role of a member of the Bar in the defense of an
accused is indispensable. Such consideration could have sufficed for petitioner not being allowed to
withdraw as counsel de oficio. There are times, and this is one of them, when duty to court and to client
takes precedence over the promptings of self-interest.

FACTS:
Petitioner Ledesma was assigned as counsel de parte for an accused in a case pending in the
sala of the respondent judge. On October 13, 1964, Ledesma was appointed Election Registrar for
the Municipality of Cadiz, Negros Occidental. He commenced discharging his duties, and filed a
motion to withdraw from his position as counsel de parte. The respondent Judge denied him and also
appointed him as counsel de oficio for the two defendants. On November 6, Ledesma filed a motion
to be allowed to withdraw as counsel de oficio, because the COMELEC requires full time service which
could prevent him from handling adequately the defense. Judge denied the motion. So Ledesma
instituted this certiorari proceeding.

ISSUE:
WON a member of the bar may withdraw as counsel de oficio due to appointment as Election
Registrar.

RULING:
No. The ends of justice would be served by requiring Ledesma to continue as counsel de oficio
because: the case has been postponed at least 8 times at the defense's instance; there was no
incompatibility between duty of petitioner to defend the accused, and his task as an election registrar.
Ledesma's withdrawal would be an act showing his lack of fidelity to the duty required of the legal
profession. He ought to have known that membership in the bar is burdened with conditions. The legal
profession is dedicated to the ideal of service, and is not a mere trade. A lawyer may be required to
act as counsel de oficio to aid in the performance of the administration of justice. The fact that such
services are rendered without pay should not diminish the lawyer's zeal. The Constitution provides
that the accused shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel. "Any person under
investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to remain silent and to counsel..." -
--manifest the indispensable role of a member of the Bar in the defense of an accused. The right to be
assisted by counsel is so important that it is not enough for the Court to apprise the accused of his
right to an atty, but is essential that the court assign on de oficio for him if he desires/ is poor. Thus,
Ledesma should exert himself sufficiently, if not with zeal, if only to erase doubts as to his fitness to
remain a member of the profession in good standing.