Ledesma vs. Climaco, G.R.

23815, 28 June 1974, 57 SCRA 473

Facts:
Adelino Ledesma, a counsel de parte for one of the parties in a case pending before the
sala of Judge Rafael Climaco, filed a motion to withdraw as counsel de parte in light of
his appointment as an election registrar.  Judge Climaco, instead of granting his
withdrawal, appointed him as counsel de oficio of the two defendants in the criminal
case. Ledesma then filed a motion to withdraw as counsel de oficio but it was denied,.
Hence, he instituted this petition for certiorari.
Issue:
Whether or not Atty. Ledesma should be allowed to withdraw as counsel de officio
considering his appointment as Election Registrar.

Ruling:
No. If respondent Judge were required to answer the petition, the welfare of the
accused could be prejudiced as stressed by Chief Justice Moran in People v. Holgado
in these words: ” Even the most intelligent or educated man may have no skill in the
science of law, particularly in the rules of procedure, and; without counsel, he may be
convicted not because he is guilty but because he does not know how to establish his
innocence. And this can happen more easily to persons who are ignorant or
uneducated. It is for this reason that the right to be assisted by counsel is deemed so
important that it has become a constitutional right and it is so implemented that under
rules of procedure it is not enough for the Court to apprise an accused of his right to
have an attorney, it is not enough to ask him whether he desires the aid of an attorney,
but it is essential that the court should assign one de oficio for him if he so desires and
he is poor or grant him a reasonable time to procure an attorney of his own.”

Membership in the Bar carries with it a responsibility to live up to its exacting standards.
Law is a profession and not a trade or craft. Those enrolled in its ranks aid the courts in
the administration of justice. As such, an attorney may be called or appointed as
counsel de oficio to aid indigents for the realization of their constitutional right to counsel
especially in criminal cases like this where a person may be convicted not because of
his or her guilt but because he or she lacks competent legal representation.
Assuming Ledesma's good faith, his appointment as an election registrar cannot be
availed of now when granting his withdrawal will result to the delay in the administration
of justice. It is to be noted that the proceedings has been delayed at least eight times at
the defense's instance, resulting to undue inconvenience to the parties involved.
What is easily discernible in this case is the petitioner's reluctance to comply with the
responsibilities incumbent upon him as counsel de oficio. Petitioner is admonished for
not being mindful of his obligation where he is expected to exercise due diligence, not
mere perfunctory representation, to the case of his clients. He must be reminded that a
member of the bar is a vanguard in the bastion of justice and is therefore expected to
have a bigger dose of social conscience and a little less self-interest.