Substitute or risk dismissal of action


In this case, a lawyer filed a motion for reconsideration without first being properly substituted as counsel of record. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals denying the motion for reconsideration, and reiterated Section 26, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, that a valid substitution of counsel has the following requirements: (1) the filing of a written application for substitution; (2) the client’s written consent; (3) the consent of the substituted lawyer if such consent can be obtained; and, in case such written consent cannot be procured, (4) a proof of service of notice of such motion on the attorney to be substituted in the manner required by the Rules.

Heirs of Retuya v. CA, et al., G.R. No. 163039, April 6, 2011, Second Division

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s