Ledesma vs Climaco 57 Scra 473 G

Ledesma vs Climaco 57 scra 473 G.R. No. L- 23815 (June 28, 1974) Facts: Atty. Ledesma was the counsel de parte for one of the cases pending before the sala of Judge Climaco. on October

13, 1964, was appointed Election Registrar for the Municipality of Cadiz, Province of Negros Occidental. Then and there, he commenced to discharge its duties. He filed a motion to withdraw from the case on the basis that his appointment as election Registrar would require full time service as well as on the Volume or pressure of work will prevent him from handling adequate the defense. Not only did respondent Judge deny such motion, but instead appointed him counsel de oficio for two defendants. A motion for reconsideration

having proved futile, he instituted this certiorari proceeding

Issue: Should his motion to withdraw as counsel prosper? Held: No. The respondent judge’s denial was proper. The crime was allegedly committed on February 17, 1962, with the proceedings having started in the municipal court of Cadiz on July 11, 1962. The case has been postponed at least eight (8) times. A motion for postponement for the October 16, 1964 resumption of trial which was filed on October 15, 1964 was highly objected by the prosecution since according to the prosecution there are two witnesses who are ready to take the stand, after which the government would rest.

In criminal cases the right to counsel is absolute. There can be no fair hearing unless the accused be given an opportunity to be heard by counsel. The right to be heard would be of little avail if it does not include the right to be heard by counsel. Ledesma certainly he cannot afford either to neglect his paying cases or other commitments. Nonetheless, what is incumbent upon him as counsel de oficio must be fulfilled. It was observed that there is no real conflict between his duties as election registrar and counsel de oficio. Ledesma was not mindful of his obligation as counsel de oficio. he ought to know that membership in the bar is a privilege burdened with conditions. Being appointed as counsel de oficio requires a high degree of fidelity..All lawyers should treat it that way as an opportunity to prove to the community that the proper performance of his profession is not contingent upon the payment of his fees. The legal profession is dedicated to the ideal

of service, and is not a mere trade. A lawyer may be required to act as counsel de oficio to aid in the performance of the administration of justice – a duty each lawyer promised to undertake upon taking his Oath. The fact that such services are rendered without pay should not diminish the lawyer's zeal.