8/13/2019 Visitacion vs Manit

1/2

Visitacion vs. Manit

27 SCRA 523, March 28, 1969

J. Teehankee

Facts:

Alfonso Visitacion, plaintiff-appellee, filed a case against defendant Victor Manit to hold

him liable subsidiarily as employer for the death of his son, Delano Visitacion, as a result of

injuries sustained in vehicular collision involving Manits driver, Rudolfo Giron, who was found

insolvent after being convicted and sentenced. The case was heard without defendant or his

counsel being present which resulted in plaintiff presenting evidence and the case was

submitted for decision. The defendant filed a motion for new trial which was granted and the

proceeding continued with the defendants presenting their evidence. On October 14, 1958, Atty.

Garcia, defendants counsel, manifested that Victor Manit had recently died and the plaintiffs

counsel amended the complaint by impleading the widow and heirs of the deceased. On

January 27, 1960, Atty. Garcia filed a motion to withdraw as counsel alleging that Manits heirs

did not hire him to represent them and both counsel and his client failed to appear at the trial thenext day. The Court considered them having renounced their right to appear and present

evidence to contest plaintiffs claim and rendered judgment in favor of plaintiff. Atty. Garcias

motion to withdraw was not passed upon and his subsequent motion for reconsideration was

denied. Thus, he filed this present appeal

Issue/s:

1. Whether or not the lower court had jurisdiction to continue the case without thedefendants brought to it by summons and without informing said defendants that theyhave become parties to the case?

2. Whether or not the lower court erred in ignoring the motion to withdraw filed by

Atty. Garcia?3. Whether or not the new defendants were not given their day in court?

Held:

Appealed judgment affirmed w/ double costs to be paid by attorney fordefendants.

No error was committed because the record shows that Atty. Garcia had acknowledgedthe receipt of the amended complaint substituting the defendant heirs as counsel fordefendants. They were impleaded and submitted to the Courts jurisdiction through theircounsels acknowledgment of the amended complaint; the issuance of a summons wasunnecessary.

The last-hour motion to withdraw filed one day before the hearing came too late and wasproperly ignored. The motion was not verified and also carried no notice to his clients on recordwhich was in violation of the Rules of Court (Rule 15, Sec. 4 and Rule 138, Sec. 26,respectively). An attorney who could not get the written consent of his client must makean application to the court, for the relation does not terminate formally until there is awithdrawal of record. The decision rendered by the lower court, upon failure of defendants andcounsel to appear, despite notification was in effect a denial of counsels application forwithdrawal. Atty. Garcias failure to appear was unexcusable and he had no right to assume thatthe Court would grant his application. Counsel had no right to presume that the court would

8/13/2019 Visitacion vs Manit

2/2

grant his withdrawal and therefore must still appear on the date of hearing.The attorneys dutyto safeguard the clients interests commences from his retainer until his defectiverelease from the case or the final disposition of the whole subject matter of the litigation.The circumstances had lead the Court to believe that the last-hour application to withdraw wasmerely a device to prolong the case and delay execution of judgment.

There was no premature judgment rendered because the record shows that thedefendant heirs were shown to be aware of the existence of the case. Leonarda Manit wascalled upon as witness during the deceaseds lifetime by Atty. Garcia and submitted herself tothe jurisdiction of the Court. Neither her nor her 3 children of age can claim ignorance of thependency of the case.

.