G.R. No. L-27231, March 28, 1969.
ALFONSO VISITACION, plaintiff-appellee, vs. VICTOR MANIT, substituted by his widow LEONARDA MANIT and daughters VIRGINIA DUNGOG, VICTORIA BATUCAN and MERLINDA MANIT, defendants-appellants.

FACTS

Plaintiff Alfonso Visitacion filed a case against defendant Victor Manit to hold him subsidiarily liable as employer for the death of plaintiff’s son, Delano Visitacion, resulting from a vehicular collision involving Manit’s driver, Rudolfo Giron. The driver had been convicted and sentenced to indemnify the heirs but was found insolvent. After the case was heard and submitted for decision, defendant moved for and was granted a new trial. During the new trial, defendant’s counsel, Atty. Jesus P. Garcia, presented evidence, including the testimony of defendant’s wife, Leonarda Manit, who stated she operated their transportation business. Defendant Victor Manit died during the pendency of the case. The trial court ordered the substitution of his heirs (widow and three daughters) as defendants, and an Amended Complaint to this effect was admitted without opposition from Atty. Garcia, who was granted time to file an answer. No new answer was filed. On the day before the next scheduled hearing, Atty. Garcia filed a “Motion to Withdraw as Counsel,” alleging the heirs had not hired him. Neither the defendants nor Atty. Garcia appeared at the hearing. The trial court, noting the defendants’ lack of interest, rendered judgment against the defendants (the substituted heirs) without ruling on the motion to withdraw. Atty. Garcia filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied. He then filed a notice of appeal and appeal bond, representing himself as “Attorney for Victor Manit deceased,” and later filed the Record on Appeal describing himself as an officer of the court and former counsel of the deceased. The Court of Appeals certified the appeal to the Supreme Court as it involved only questions of law.

ISSUE

1. Whether the trial court erred in proceeding with the case and rendering judgment without serving summons on the substituted defendant-heirs and without informing them they had become parties.
2. Whether the trial court erred in ignoring Atty. Garcia’s Motion to Withdraw as Counsel.
3. Whether the trial court erred in rendering a premature judgment without giving the new defendants their day in court.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision.
1. The trial court did not err in continuing with the case. The substituted heirs were duly impleaded via the Amended Complaint, which Atty. Garcia, as their counsel of record, acknowledged receipt of without opposition and even sought time to answer. By submitting to the court’s jurisdiction through their counsel, the issuance of summons was unnecessary. The claim that the heirs were uninformed was untenable, as Atty. Garcia, as their attorney of record and an officer of the court, had the duty to inform them, and there was no assertion he failed in this duty.
2. The trial court did not err in ignoring the Motion to Withdraw. The motion was filed one day before the hearing, was unverified, carried no notice of hearing (making it a “mere scrap of paper”), and lacked the required notice to the clients. An attorney-client relationship does not terminate until there is a formal withdrawal of record, and the court’s ignoring of the motion and proceeding to judgment constituted a denial of the withdrawal application. Atty. Garcia’s failure to appear was inexcusable.
3. The trial court did not err in rendering judgment. The defendants, through their counsel, had been duly notified of the hearing. Their failure to appear, without justifiable explanation or an affidavit of merits, constituted a waiver of their right to present evidence. The widow, having testified earlier about operating the business, could not credibly claim ignorance of the case. The appeal by Atty. Garcia was deemed a device to delay execution. The judgment was affirmed with double costs imposed on the attorney for the defendants.