Case Digest (G.R. No. L-23815)
Facts:
In Adelino H. Ledesma v. Hon. Rafael C. Climaco, petitioner Adelino H. Ledesma, originally acting as counsel de parte for two accused in a criminal case before the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental, Branch I, Silay City, was appointed Election Registrar for Cadiz, Negros Occidental, on October 13, 1964. Aware of his continued representation obligations, petitioner sought to withdraw his appearance as counsel de parte, but respondent Judge Climaco instead designated him as counsel de oficio for the same defendants to avoid prejudicing their right to counsel. On November 3, 1964, petitioner filed an urgent motion to withdraw as counsel de oficio, citing the full-time service requirement imposed by the Commission on Elections and the pressures of official duty, which he argued would prevent him from devoting adequate time to the defense. Respondent Judge denied this motion by order of November 6, 1964, concluding that withdrawal would unduly delay the trial, especially sCase Digest (G.R. No. L-23815)
Facts:
- Parties and Background
- Petitioner Adelino H. Ledesma was originally retained as counsel de parte for two accused in a criminal case before Branch I of the CFI of Negros Occidental, Silay City.
- Respondent Hon. Rafael C. Climaco is the Presiding Judge of that court.
- Chronology of Events
- October 13, 1964 – Petitioner appointed Election Registrar for Cadiz, Negros Occidental by the Commission on Elections and commenced duties.
- October 15–16, 1964 – Petitioner moved for postponement of the trial; respondent Judge denied postponement but designated him counsel de oficio to avoid prejudice to his civil service status.
- November 3, 1964 – Petitioner filed an “urgent motion to withdraw” as counsel de oficio, alleging full-time duties as Election Registrar and potential conflict with trial responsibilities.
- November 6, 1964 – Respondent Judge denied petitioner’s motion to withdraw; motion for reconsideration likewise denied.
- Petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari alleging grave abuse of discretion by the respondent Judge in refusing his withdrawal.
Issues:
- Whether the respondent Judge’s denial of petitioner’s motion to withdraw as counsel de oficio constitutes a grave abuse of discretion.
- Whether petitioner’s appointment as Election Registrar and alleged workload justified his withdrawal from representation as court-appointed counsel.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)