[ G.R. No.

L-22320, July 29, 1968 ]

MERCEDES RUTH COBB-PEREZ AND DAMASO P. PEREZ, PETITIONERS VS. HON. GREGORIO LANTIN,
ETC., ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

Cobb-Perez v. Lantin, 24 SCRA 191 (1968)

CASTRO, J.:
 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.

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 officio but it was denied,. Hence, he instituted this
petition for certiorari.

Issue:
Whether or not the respondent Judge acted with grave abuse of discretion in denying the
petitioner's withdrawal as counsel

Held:
No. 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 officio
to aid indigentsinr 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 have been delayed at least eight times at the defense's
instance, resulting in 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 officio. 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.
WALTER T. YOUNG v. CEASAR G. BATUEGAS +
451 Phil. 155, 403 scra 123
[ AC. No. 5379, May 09, 2003 ]

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.: