GR 167886; (October, 2005) (Digest)
G.R. No. 167886 October 25, 2005
LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, vs. PAMINTUAN DEVELOPMENT CO., represented by MARIANO PAMINTUAN, JR., Respondent.
FACTS
The Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) rendered a decision fixing the just compensation for respondent’s land. Petitioner Land Bank moved for reconsideration, which was denied. The order of denial was received on June 11, 2004. During the proceedings, petitioner was initially represented by Piczon, Beramo & Associates. On June 4, 2004, Attorneys Engilberto Montarde and Felix Mesa filed a Notice of Entry of Appearance. Within the reglementary period, on June 15, 2004, these new counsels filed a Notice of Appeal. Respondent opposed, arguing the new lawyers lacked authority as there was no proper substitution of the former counsel of record.
ISSUE
Whether the DARAB gravely abused its discretion in denying due course to the Notice of Appeal filed by Attorneys Montarde and Mesa on the ground of lack of authority.
RULING
Yes, the DARAB committed grave abuse of discretion. Under Section 21, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, an attorney is presumed to be properly authorized to represent a cause in which he appears, and no written power of attorney is required. This presumption is strong. The court may only require proof of authority upon motion and on reasonable grounds. Here, the filing of the Notice of Entry of Appearance gave rise to this presumption. When challenged, the counsels presented a Special Power of Attorney executed by petitioner’s Executive Vice President and memoranda from the Head of its CARP Legal Services Department confirming the authority to file the appeal. These documents constituted sufficient proof. The DARAB’s insistence on a formal substitution of counsel is unmeritorious. The rules on substitution are for the convenience of the court and are not mandatory when the client’s representation is continuous, as petitioner never intended to dismiss its former counsel but merely engaged additional lawyers. Furthermore, any defect in authority was cured by petitioner’s subsequent ratification through its vigorous assertion that the lawyers were authorized. Ratification retroacts to validate the act. The Court of Appeals’ affirmance disregarded the principle that rules of procedure should not be rigidly applied to frustrate the just determination of a case. The Notice of Appeal was seasonably filed and should be given due course.