G.R. No. 174039 ; June 29, 2010
NELLY BAUTISTA, Petitioner, vs. SERAPH MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC., Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Nelly Bautista, an incorporator of respondent Seraph Management Group, Inc., filed an intra-corporate complaint before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Kalibo, Aklan. She sought to inspect corporate books and records and to be furnished the latest financial statement, alleging no stockholders’ or directors’ meetings had been held since incorporation. She also claimed her written requests were refused. Respondent countered she had no right of inspection, asserting she had executed a Deed of Assignment transferring her shares to the President, Min Sung Cho, in 2001. Petitioner replied the deed was a forgery, as the transfer would violate foreign ownership restrictions.
The RTC dismissed the complaint on grounds of improper venue. Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). During the pendency of the appeal, petitioner herself filed a manifestation with motion, relieving her counsel, Atty. Mariano Pefianco, and moving to dismiss her appeal because she had entered into a Compromise Agreement with respondents. The CA granted the motion and dismissed the appeal. Atty. Pefianco then filed a motion for reconsideration, alleging petitioner signed the compromise under duress as a battered common-law wife of Cho, and that the agreement was contrary to law and public policy. The CA required petitioner to personally comment, but she failed to do so, leading to the denial of the motion.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing petitioner’s appeal based on her motion to withdraw and in upholding the Compromise Agreement.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition, upholding the CA’s dismissal. The legal logic is anchored on procedural rules and evidentiary presumptions. First, under Section 3, Rule 50 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, an appellant may withdraw an appeal as of right before the filing of the appellee’s brief. Here, respondents had not yet filed their brief when petitioner moved to withdraw; thus, the CA’s grant was proper. Second, a client has the absolute right to terminate the attorney-client relationship at any time. The Court cannot inquire into the propriety of petitioner relieving her counsel.
Regarding the validity of the Compromise Agreement, Atty. Pefianco’s allegations of duress, harassment, and signature discrepancies were unsubstantiated by proof beyond his assertions. Absent such evidence, the presumption of validity of the agreement stands. The CA afforded petitioner an opportunity to clarify by ordering her personal comment on the motion for reconsideration, but her failure to comply reinforced the agreement’s credibility. Furthermore, the present petition lacked petitioner’s verification and certificate of non-forum shopping, indicating either her lack of interest or that her counsel no longer had authority to act. Thus, no reversible error was committed by the CA.