OBANDO VS.

FIGUERAS
322 SCRA 148 (2000)

Rule 22.02 - A lawyer who withdraws or is discharged shall, subject to a retainer lien, immediately turn over
all papers and property to which the client is entitled, and shall cooperative with his successor in the orderly
transfer of the matter, including all information necessary for the proper handling of the matter.

FACTS:

Alegria Figueras, with her stepsons Eduardo and Francisco, filed a petition for settlement of the intestate
estate of her deceased husband Jose Figueras. She died while case was pending so Eduardo assumed
administration of the joint estates of Jose and Alegria. Shortly after the proceedings in both intestacies have
begun, petitioner Felizardo (Alegria's nephew) filed a Petition for Probate (court process by which a will is
proved valid or invalid) of Alegria's Last Will and Testament. Allegedly, the will bequeathed to petitioner and
other Obando relatives clan properties left by Sps. Figueras. The probate case and the intestate proceedings
were consolidated, and Petitioner was appointed as Eduardo's co-administrator of the joint estates.

Eduardo insisted that the alleged Will was a forgery, the document was submitted to the National Bureau of
Investigation (NBI) for examination and comparison of Doña Alegrias alleged signature therein with samples
which both parties accepted as authentic. Upon examination, it was found that the Will was forged, as the
signatures in the will and standard signatures were not made by the same person. Petitioner was indicted and
convicted of estafa through falsification of a public document.

Eduardo filed motion for authority to sell the parcels of land but was DENIED by probate court in Feb 20
1990. Eduardo still sold the same to Amigo Realty Corp. June 4 1992.

On Feb. 11 1993 the Trial Court granted Motion to Dismiss and dismissed petition for annulment of sale.

Obando (filed a Complaint against Eduardo and AmigoRealty for the nullification of the sale to the Regional
Trial Court of Quezon City,Branch 79. In Special Proceeding Nos. 61567 and 123948, the probate court in its
order dated December 17, 1997 removed Obando from his office as co-administrator of the estate.
Consequently, on January 27, 1998 the respondents filed a Joint Motion to Dismiss on the civil case to which
the trial court granted the motion. Obando then filed a Motion for Reconsideration to no avail. Then his
Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus was dismissed and the dismissal order of the RTC was affirmed.

CONTENTION OF THE COMPLAINANT:

A. Petitioner argues before the Supreme Court that the motion to dismiss was invalid since at the time
of the filing, Atty. Yuseco no longer represented the respondents, as shown by Eduardo’s
Manifestation and Motion dated January 8, 1998, dispensing with said counsel’s services in the
proceedings in view of a Compromise Agreement with Petitioner Obando.

B. Petitioners also aver that it was premature for the trial court to dismiss the civil case because
Obando’s conviction for estafa through falsification was still on appeal.

RULING OF THE SUPREME COURT:

A. Counsel of Record

Representation continues until the court dispenses with the services of counsel. Counsel may be validly
substituted only if the following requisites are complied with:
(1) new counsel files a written application for substitution;
(2) the clients written consent is obtained; and
(3) the written consent of the lawyer to be substituted is secured, if it can still be; if the written consent can no
longer be obtained, then the application for substitution must carry proof that notice of the motion has been
served on the attorney to be substituted in the manner required by the Rules.

In this case, we are convinced that Eduardo did not dismiss Attorney Yuseco. In fact, the former manifested
that he had been tricked by Petitioner Obando into signing the aforesaid Manifestation and Motion and
Compromise Agreement. Besides, the filing of the Motion to Dismiss was not prejudicial but beneficial to the
said respondent; hence, he had no reason to complain. At the discretion of the court, an attorney who has
already been dismissed by the client is allowed to intervene in a case in order to protect the client’s rights. In
the present case, had there been any irregularity, it should have been raised by the respondents, not the
petitioners.

B. Removal from Administration

This argument has no bearing at all on the dismissal of the civil case. Petitioner Obando derived his power to
represent the estate of the deceased couple from his appointment as co-administrator. When the probate
court removed him from office, he lost that authority. Since he lacked the legal capacity to sue on behalf of
the Figueras estates, he could not continue prosecuting the civil case. Thus the trial court properly granted the
Motion to Dismiss on this ground. Whether a final conviction for a crime involving moral turpitude is
necessary to remove him from his administration is not a proper issue in this Petition. He should raise the
matter in his appeal of the Decision removing him from administration of the Figueras estates.

The fact that the conviction of Obando and his removal from administration are on appeal only means that
his legal standing could be restored; thus, the civil case was correctly dismissed without prejudice. If his
conviction is reversed and his appointment restored by the probate court, the case may continue without
being barred by res judicata. The lower court’s Decision showed that it was careful in its action. On the other
hand, Obando has yet to show that he has regained administration of the Figueras estates. Noteworthy also is
the fact that his removal from office was predicated not only on his conviction for a crime, but also on his
failure to render an accounting of the rentals of a property leased to the Community of Learners.

Petition is hereby DENIED and the assailed Resolution AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioners.