0% found this document useful (0 votes)
421 views1 page

Rustia v. Judge: Client's Right to Dismiss

The Spouses Porcuna hired Atty. Rustia to represent them in their case against Eulalia Magsombol. Their contract stated they could not compromise the case without Atty. Rustia's consent. After winning at trial, the Spouses filed a motion to dismiss the case without informing Atty. Rustia, having compromised with the defendant. Atty. Rustia argued the judge exceeded his jurisdiction by dismissing without notice to him. However, the court ruled a client may dismiss their lawyer at any time and compromise a suit without the lawyer's intervention, so the Spouses impliedly dismissed Atty. Rustia by filing the motion themselves.

Uploaded by

Dany
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
421 views1 page

Rustia v. Judge: Client's Right to Dismiss

The Spouses Porcuna hired Atty. Rustia to represent them in their case against Eulalia Magsombol. Their contract stated they could not compromise the case without Atty. Rustia's consent. After winning at trial, the Spouses filed a motion to dismiss the case without informing Atty. Rustia, having compromised with the defendant. Atty. Rustia argued the judge exceeded his jurisdiction by dismissing without notice to him. However, the court ruled a client may dismiss their lawyer at any time and compromise a suit without the lawyer's intervention, so the Spouses impliedly dismissed Atty. Rustia by filing the motion themselves.

Uploaded by

Dany
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
  • Case Overview: Provides a detailed summary of the court case Rustia v. Judge of First Instance of Batangas, including the facts, issue, and ruling.

CASE 23 (G.R. NO.

L-19695 NOVEMBER 17, 1922)

RUSTIA V. JUDGE OF FIRST INSTANCE OF BATANGAS

FACTS:

Justo and Rosa Porcuna contracted the services of Atty. Juan S. Rustia (petitioner) to represent them in their
case filed at the then Court of First Instance of Batangas against Eulalia Magsombol. In their written contract,
it was provided that the Spouses Porcuna should not compromise their claim against the defendant without
the consent of Atty. Rustia.

After trial, the Court ruled in favor of the Spouses Porcuna. Consequently, the defendant filed a Motion for
Exception from Judgment and Motion for New Trial, both of which were denied. Thereafter, the defendant
filed a Notice of Appeal and presented a Bill of Exceptions, which was then approved. However, before the
transmittal of the Bill of Exceptions to the Court, the Spouses Porcuna, without the intervention of their
counsel (Atty. Rustia), filed a motion to the Court stating that the same have already compromised with the
defendant and requested for the dismissal of the case. Since the lawyer of the defendant assented to the said
motion, the Court then dismissed the action without notice to Atty. Rustia.

As a result of the dismissal of the case, Atty. Rustia filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari alleging that Judge
Francisco Dominguez of CFI Batangas exceeded his jurisdiction in dismissing the action without the
intervention of the former.

ISSUE:

Whether Atty. Rustia is entitled to a notice of his client’s motion to dismiss the case.

RULING:

No. Under Section 32 of the then Code of Civil Procedure (now Section 26, Rule 138), a client may dismiss the
lawyer at any time or at any stage of the proceedings. Hence, a client has an undoubted right to compromise
the suit without the intervention of a lawyer and there is nothing to prevent the same from appearing before
the court to conduct his own litigation. In this case, the personal appearance and the filing of the motion of the
plaintiffs (Spouses Porcuna) have impliedly dismissed the services of Atty. Rustia.

CASE 23 (G.R. NO. L-19695 NOVEMBER 17, 1922)
RUSTIA V. JUDGE OF FIRST INSTANCE OF BATANGAS
FACTS:
Justo and Rosa Porcuna cont

You might also like