Angelita Orcino vs Atty. Josue Gaspar

written by Howard

A.C. No. 3773 – 344 Phil. 792 – 279 SCRA 379 – Legal Ethics – Canon 22 – Termination of Legal Services 

Angelita Orcino’s husband was murdered and she was zealous in prosecuting the suspects. She hired Atty. Josue Gaspar as her counsel and they agreed to a P20, attorney’s fee which Orcino paid. Atty. Gaspar did his duty religiously from interviewing witnesses to attending hearings and the preliminary investigation. But on the day bail is to be heard, Atty. Gaspar failed to appear. Bail was granted in favor of the suspects and this enraged Orcino. She then went to Gaspar’s residence where Gaspar reasoned out that he did not receive a notice of hearing hence his absence. Finding his reason to be insufficient, Orcino demanded the records of the case and advised Gaspar that she’ll be hiring another lawyer. Gaspar complied and thereafter he filed a motion to withdraw as counsel. The court did not grant his motion because the same was without Orcino’s written consent. Perhaps changing her mind, Orcino refused to give her consent. Gaspar, however, did not attend the subsequent hearings. Orcino then filed an administrative complaint against Gaspar for abandoning the case.

ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Gaspar violated his duties to his client.

HELD: Yes. The belligerence of Orcino towards Gaspar is understandable and is attributed to her over zealousness to bring justice to the death of her husband. When she uttered that she’s terminating Gaspar’s services, she did so in a burst of passion. She did not really mean to terminate Gaspar at all as evidenced by her refusal to give consent to Gaspar’s motion.

At any rate, a lawyer cannot unilaterally terminate his legal services to his client. Unlike the other way around where a client has the absolute right to terminate the attorney-client relationship with or without just cause. Atty. Gaspar has no reason to presume that his motion shall be granted by the court. He should have not left Orcino in the cold and should have continued appearing for her until there is a withdrawal of record and a successor placed in his stead. Gaspar was admonished accordingly. He was also directed to return half of what was paid him.

Read full text