Unauthorized appearance

Lawyers cannot appear as counsel for a party to a case without authority to do so. Otherwise they might be disbarred, suspended or fined. This is illustrated in this case of Attys. Mike, Leo, Rudy and Randy.

The case involved a government owned and controlled corporation (GOCC) engaged in water distribution (KWD). On April 17, 2006, KWD hired Mike as private counsel for a period of one year with the approval and consent of the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel (OGCC) and the Commission on Audit (COA). Subsequently however, controversy erupted within the Board of KWD when two different groups laid claim as the legitimate Board of Directors: the DP and the AY group.

On December 28, 2006, the board members belonging to DP group filed Civil Case No. 1793 for Injunction and Damages seeking to annul the appointment of two directors who were allegedly in connivance with AY. Then on January 18, 2007, the DP board also adopted a resolution appointing Attys. Rudy and Leo as private collaborating counsels of Atty. Mike for all cases of KWD and its Board under Mike’s supervision and control. 

On February 7, 2007, Attys. Mike, Leo and Rudy filed another special civil action (SCA 50-24) for indirect contempt against the AY group as counsel of KWD represented by its General Manager (GM). Then on February 19, 2007, they also filed another Civil Case No. 1799 for Injunction and Damages as counsel for KWD represented by the GM, against RJ who belongs to the AY group. Later on Atty. Randy also started appearing as counsel for KWD in these cases.

Meanwhile, the Local Water Utilities Authority (LUWA) resolved the dispute between DP and AY group by confirming the AY board as the new Board of Directors of KWD. The said board thus terminated Atty. Mike’s services as counsel of KWD and requested the OGCC to hire another counsel. So on February 16, 2007, the OGCC approved the retainership contract of the new counsel and terminated Atty. Mikes contract effective January 14, 2007.

But on January 28, 2008, Atty. Mike still appeared and argued the urgent motion seeking the return of KWD properties. Then he also manifested in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) that they will file a motion for reconsideration of the orders dismissing Civil Cases 1799 and 1793. Also on February 28, 2008 Atty. Mike filed a notice of appeal in Civil Case 1799.

So the AY Board particularly RJ and EP filed a complaint for disbarment against Attys. Mike, Leo, Rudy and Randy for appearing as counsels of KWD without legal authority. For their defense, the four lawyers argued that they could validly represent KWD until April 17, 2007, the date of expiration of Atty. Mike’s approved retainership contract because atty. Mike was not notified of its pre-termination. Leo, Rudy and Randy said that after April 17, 2007, they did not appear any more. Were they administratively liable?

Yes. Only in exceptional cases can GOCCs hire a private lawyer and it must be with the written conformity and consent of the OGCC and the COA. Nothing on the record shows that Atty. Randy was hired by KWD nor was it approved by the OGCC and COA. Insofar as Attys. Leo and Rudy are concerned, their appointment as collaborating counsels of KWD has no approval of OGCC and COA.

In the case of Atty. Mike, his appointment as counsel with the consent of OGCC and COA was only for a period of one year and was even pre-terminated by OGCC. Even if he was not notified of such pre-termination the records still disprove his claim that he stopped representing KWD after April 17, 2007. He filed and appeared to argue a motion on January 28, 2008 to protect the interest of KWD. The notice of appeal in civil case 1799 dated Feb. 28,2008 was also signed and filed by him.

Consequently, the four lawyers involved appeared as counsel of KWD without authority to do so. Under Section 27, Rule 128 of the Rules of Court, a member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended for willfully appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without authority to do so. Disbarment however is the most severe form of disciplinary sanction and should be imposed only for the most imperative reasons affecting the standing and moral character of the lawyer as an officer of the court and member of the bar. For wilfully appearing as counsel without approval from the OGCC and COA, a fine of P5,000 should be imposed on Attys. Mike, Leo Rudy and Randy Vargas et. al. vs. Ignes et. al. A. M. 8096, July 5, 2010, 623 SCRA 1).

* * *

E-mail at: [email protected]