This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2007-04-24 |
GARCIA, J. |
||||
| For one, the filing of the respondent law firm of Alvarez Cañete Lopez Pangandoyon Ahat & Paredes Law Offices of its motion to lift the order of garnishment cannot be adjudged contumacious simply because they do not appear as counsel of record of respondent Marguerite Lhuillier/Agencia Cebuana. Their engagement to file that particular motion does not appear to be a replacement or substitution of counsel where the withdrawal or consent of former counsel is required. There was no intention on their part to replace or substitute the counsels on record of Marguerite Lhuillier and/or Agencia Cebuana. For sure, the services of the counsels on record were never terminated. In this light, we are inclined to believe that the engagement of the law firm of Alvarez Cañete Lopez Pangandoyon & Paredes Law Offices appears to have been on collaborative effort basis. Besides, it is settled rule in our jurisdiction that a lawyer is presumed to be properly authorized to represent any cause in which he appears.[7] It is hard to imagine that the respondent law firm who has no personal interest in the case would fight for and defend a case with persistence and vigor if it had not been authorized or employed by the party concerned.[8] Besides, it must be stressed that the respondent law firm merely filed a motion to lift the order of garnishment, an appearance which is basically limited in character. | |||||