Land Bank and Pamintuan Development Co were parties in a case for determination of just compensation before the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB). Land Bank was represented by Atty. Piczon. DARAB fixed the amount for just compensation but Land Bank did not agree with the amount fixed. It moved for reconsideration but the motion was denied.
Within the period to appeal, Atty. Engilberto Montarde and Atty. Felix Mesa entered their appearance for Land Bank and they were able to timely file a Notice of Appeal. However, DARAB denied Land Bank’s notice of appeal on the ground that Land Bank failed to submit a written authorization in favor of Attys. Montarde and Mesa; that without such authorization, only Atty. Piczon can validly represent Land Bank.
ISSUE: Whether or not the DARAB is correct.
HELD: No. DARAB committed grave abuse of discretion in ruling that Attys. Montarde and Mesa’s legal representation of Land Bank is void. In accordance with Sec. 21, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, the presumption in favor of the counsel’s authority to appear in behalf of a client is a strong one. A lawyer is not required to present a written authorization from the client. In fact, the absence of a formal notice of entry of appearance will not invalidate the acts performed by the counsel in his client’s name. The filing of a notice of entry of appearance by Attys. Montarde and Mesa, gave rise to the presumption that they have the authority to file the notice of appeal in behalf of Land Bank.
