Legal Ethics

Dominga Salazar vs Fausto Jarabe

image_printPrint this!

G.R. No. L-4659 – 91 Phil. 596 – Legal Ethics – Authority to Bind Client

In August 1946, Dominga Salazar filed an ejectment case against Fausto Jarabe. Dominga was represented by Atty. Lourdes Paredes-Santiago. During trial, Atty. Paredes-Santiago moved for the approval of a compromise agreement signed by her for Salazar and by Jarabe. Thereafter, a judgment based on compromise was issued by the trial court and the case was terminated.

In February 1948, Salazar, with a new counsel, again filed an ejectment case against Jarabe. Jarabe moved for the dismissal of the case on the ground that Salazar’s cause of action was already dissolved by the compromise agreement which was the basis of the judgment in the 1946 case.

Salazar countered that the compromise agreement is void because she did not sign it and that it was only Atty. Paredes-Santiago who signed the same without her authority.

ISSUE: Whether or not what Atty. Paredes-Santiago did is correct.

HELD: No. Under the Rules of Court, without a special authority by the client an attorney cannot in his or her behalf, in or out of court, execute any act not necessary or incidental to the prosecution or management of the suit, or for the accomplishment of its purpose, for which he was retained. Without a special power of attorney, the compromise that Atty. Paredes-Santiago entered into was outside the general powers of her retainer or employment.

Nevertheless, Salazar is barred by laches. She failed to repudiate the compromise agreement. Her failure for a considerable period to disavow it raises the presumption that she acquiesced in her attorney’s action.

Read full text.

image_printPrint this!

Leave a Reply