Facts:

The case of Gerardo M. Alfonso v. Nicasio Yatco [G.R. No. L-1128, February 28, 1948] revolves around a civil action in the Court of First Instance of Laguna, specifically Civil Case No. 7996. Gerardo M. Alfonso, acting on behalf of attorney Estanislao A. Fernandez, Jr., filed a motion on August 9, 1946, requesting a postponement of a scheduled hearing. This request was granted by the judge, who moved the hearing to August 20, 1946, with the stipulation that the new date was non-transferable. Upon the rescheduled hearing date, Alfonso arrived late but provided explanations that the court found satisfactory. He then orally reiterated the request included in Fernandez's motion to withdraw as the counsel for the defendants, which had been lost. The judge insisted that Alfonso, being present, should represent the defendants and proceed, rather than delaying the case further and potentially harming the interests of the other party, who had arrived with witnesses.

Alfonso proteste

...

Facts:

Background of the Case

• In Civil Case No. 7996 before the Laguna First Instance Court, Atty. Gerardo M. Alfonso, acting as an auxiliary in the law office of Atty. Estanislao A. Fernandez, Jr., submitted a motion on behalf of Fernandez.
• The motion requested a postponement of the scheduled hearing from August 9, 1946, to a later date.
• The trial court granted the motion and postponed the hearing to August 20, 1946, with the condition that the new date was intransferable.

Developments on the Day of the Hearing

• On the appointed day, when the case was called, Atty. Alfonso arrived after some delay.
• He explained his tardiness citing reasons such as transportation issues (the “jeep” malfunctioning, leading him to take a "truck") and the loss of his eyeglasses, which contributed to complications in reviewing the case materials.
• Atty. Alfonso, representing the defendants, reproduced orally the contents of a previously filed motion by Atty. Fernandez.
• The lost motion had contained the request for Atty. Fernandez’s withdrawal from representing the defendants.
• The trial judge, upon hearing his explanations and factual recounting, advised him that since he was present in court, he might proceed to represent the defendants for the sake of judicial economy and to avoid prejudice against the opposing party, who had come with witnesses.
• Despite his assertions that:
• He had not made any formal appearance in the record.
• He was unprepared due to lack of adequate information about the case.
• He had not conferred with the defendants or their witnesses.
• He did not have his eyeglasses (lost along with the motion requesting withdrawal).
• Atty. Alfonso nevertheless continued to represent the defendants when the hearing resumed at around 11:20 a.m., following the judge’s instruction not to leave the courtroom.

Subsequent Proceedings and Post-hearing Developments

• Later on that same day, Atty. Alfonso filed another motion requesting permission to withdraw his representation as counsel for the defendants.
• He claimed that the defendants had already consented to his removal.
• The court accepted the motion and proceeded with the hearing without counsel for the defendants.
• In the afternoon, the trial judge rendered a decision sentencing the defendants unfavorably.
• On September 2, 1946, Atty. Alfonso filed a subsequent motion seeking the exclusion of two paragraphs in the decision that censured his conduct.
• The motion was denied on September 9, 1946.
• Atty. Alfonso subsequently petitioned this higher tribunal through a certiorari application alleging:
• That the trial judge acted without proper jurisdiction or exceeded his discretionary bounds.
• That no other available remedy was as immediate or effective, insisting on the revocation of the contested parts of the decision.

Additional Context and Judicial Remarks

• The record shows that on August 9, 1946, Atty. Fernandez had initially requested the matter be postponed through Atty. Alfonso, who acted as his representative.
• The trial judge had clearly warned that the rescheduled hearing on August 20 was intransferable.
• Atty. Alfonso was well aware, as an officer of the court, of the procedural orders and yet proceeded contrary to proper protocol.
• The custody of the case materials was with another attorney (Atty. Nestor Alampay), further complicating Atty. Alfonso’s position in adequately representing the defendants.
• Ultimately, the trial court censured Atty. Alfonso for his conduct and his role as counsel under the specific circumstances.

Issue:

Jurisdictional and Procedural Issues

• Whether Atty. Alfonso’s petition for certiorari is an appropriate remedy given that the decision challenged is final rather than interlocutory.
• Whether the petitioner's nontraditional role as an “auxiliary” rather than a duly employed counsel for the defendants disqualifies him from seeking relief via certiorari.

Representation and Due Process Concerns

• Whether compelling a party to proceed in trial with an attorney who was not of the party’s own choosing infringed on the defendants’ constitutional right to due process.
• Whether the trial judge abused his discretion by insisting that Atty. Alfonso continue to represent the defendants despite his objections and difficulties in preparing for the hearing.

Appropriateness of the Trial Judge’s Rulings

• Whether the trial judge’s admonition and subsequent acceptance of the withdrawal motion were procedurally sound under the dictates of law.
• Whether the censured statements inserted in the decision against Atty. Alfonso are justified in light of the extensive record and the precedents cited.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)