This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2012-11-27 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| One. Atty. Sindingan filed a Motion to Withdraw as Counsel[73] for petitioner as early as 17 February 2005. Such motion was filed before this very Court during the pendency of G.R. No. 157877. As G.R. No. 157877 was merely an appeal from CA-G.R. No. 72864, the Motion to Withdraw as Counsel filed in the former likewise takes effect in the latter. | |||||
|
2012-11-27 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| As settled beforehand, the withdrawal of Atty. Sindingan, filed before this Court during the pendency of G.R. No. 157877 on 17 February 2005, bore the written conformity of the petitioner. The withdrawal was, thus, valid notwithstanding that Atty. Sindingan did not state therein any supporting reason therefor. Moreover, despite the fact that such withdrawal left petitioner without counsel in G.R. No. 157877, this Court never issued any order deferring its effectivity. On the contrary, this Court had implicitly assented to the withdrawal of Atty. Sindingan when it served, albeit unsuccessfully, copies of its decision in G.R. No. 157877 on petitioner at her address-of-record. Indeed, it was only after multiple failed attempts to reach petitioner that this Court finally issued a Resolution wherein we "considered" the decision in G.R. No. 157877 as already served upon her.[82] | |||||
|
2009-08-28 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Section 50, Rule III of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the CSC[13] plainly states that a party may elevate a decision of the Commission before the Court of Appeals by way of a petition for review under Rule 43 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Court.[14] | |||||