Case Digest (A.M. No. 1974)
Facts:
- Complainant Zoilo E. Cadelina accused respondent Genovevo Q. Manhilot of replacing him as counsel in Special Proceeding No. 116233 without proper notification.
- Cadelina learned of his replacement during the pendency of the special proceeding and filed an administrative case against Manhilot for deceit, malpractice, dishonest conduct, or other gross misconduct.
Issue:
- (Unlock)
Ruling:
- The complaint against Manhilot is dismissed due to lack of evidence.
- Manhilot's countercharge against Cadelina...(Unlock)
Ratio:
- Manhilot argued that he tried to notify Cadelina of his replacement but failed as Cadelina no longer occupied his office address of record and did not leave any forwarding address.
- The Court referred the case to the Solicitor General for investigation, report, and recommendation.
- The Solicitor General concluded that Manhilot's entry as counsel for Jose B. Rodriguez in Special Proceeding No. 116233, while Cadelina was still counsel on record, was authorized and within Rodriguez's prerogative.
- The Solicitor General found no evidence to suggest that Manhilot influenced or prevailed upon Rodriguez to discharge Cadelina.
- The Solicitor General recommended the dismissal of the complaint against Manhilot due to the lack of preponderant evidence.
- The Court agreed with the Solicitor General's recommendation and dismissed the complaint against Manhilot.
- The Court also addressed Manhilot's countercharge against Cadelina, even though it had become moot and academic due to Cadelina's death.
- The Court found that Manhilot failed to substantiate his countercharge and that Cadelina had provided a "Contract of Engagement as Attorney" signed by Rodriguez and Pellosis Eco, authorizing Cadelina and Associates to represent them in the special proceeding.
- The Court dismi...continue reading
Case Digest (A.M. No. 1974)
Facts:
The case of Cadelina v. Manhilot involves an administrative complaint against lawyer Genovevo Q. Manhilot for replacing another lawyer, Zoilo E. Cadelina, without proper notification. The complaint arose from a special proceeding in the Court of First Instance of Manila, where Cadelina served as counsel for Jose B. Rodriguez. Cadelina claimed that he was replaced by Manhilot without being formally notified, which he argued was a violation of the Rules of Court and the Canons of Professional Ethics.
Issue:
The main issue in this case is whether Manhilot's entry as counsel for Rodriguez without formally notifying Cadelina constituted deceit, malpractice, dishonest conduct, or other gross misconduct.
Ruling:
The Court ruled that Manhilot's actions were authorized and within his prerogative as a client has the right to substitute his attorney. The Court dismissed the complaint against Manhilot for lack of merit. Additionally, the Court addressed Manhilot's countercharge against Cadelina, which it found to be without merit, and dismissed it as well.
Ratio:
The Court required Manhilot ...