0 penilaian0% menganggap dokumen ini bermanfaat (0 suara)
21 tayangan1 halaman
"True, a lawyer is generally presumed to be properly authorized to represent any cause in which he appears, and no written power of attorney is required to authorize him to appear in court for his client. But this presumption is disputable. Where said authority has been challenged or attacked by the adverse party the lawyer is required to show proof of such authority or representation in order to bind his client. The requirement of the production of authority is essential because the client will be bound by his acquiescence resulting from his knowledge that
"True, a lawyer is generally presumed to be properly authorized to represent any cause in which he appears, and no written power of attorney is required to authorize him to appear in court for his client. But this presumption is disputable. Where said authority has been challenged or attacked by the adverse party the lawyer is required to show proof of such authority or representation in order to bind his client. The requirement of the production of authority is essential because the client will be bound by his acquiescence resulting from his knowledge that
"True, a lawyer is generally presumed to be properly authorized to represent any cause in which he appears, and no written power of attorney is required to authorize him to appear in court for his client. But this presumption is disputable. Where said authority has been challenged or attacked by the adverse party the lawyer is required to show proof of such authority or representation in order to bind his client. The requirement of the production of authority is essential because the client will be bound by his acquiescence resulting from his knowledge that
COMES NOW Petitioner _____________, by counsel and unto this
Honorable Court of Appeals, most respectfully aver: Prefatory Statement
1. This is a Petition for Certiorari to annul the Orders dated 14 May 2002 and 21 January 2002 of the Public Respondent Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch _____, _____________ City in Civil Case No. _____________ entitled "_____________ and _____________, Plaintiffs, versus _____________ and _____________, Defendants"; 2. Certified true copies of the said orders are attached to the original of this Petition as Annexes "A" and "B"; 3. The first Order dated 21 January 2002 (Annex "B") denied Petitioner's Motion to Dismiss the Complaint in the aforementioned civil case, while the second Order dated 14 May 2002 (Annex "A") denied petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration of the Order dated 21 January 2002; 4. The second Order (Annex "A") denying petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration was received by petitioner on 22 May 2002;
THE PARTIES 5. Petitioner _____________ is a domestic corporation duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the Republic of the Philippines with principal office at _____________, Philippines. For purposes of this action, Plaintiff may be served with notices and other court processes through the office address of the undersigned counsel; 6. Public Respondent JUDGE _____________ is being impleaded in his official capacity as the Presiding Judge of Regional Trial Court, Branch _____, _____________ City and may be served with any notice or order of this Honorable Court at the Hall of Justice Building, _____________ City, Philippines; 7. Private Respondents _____________ and _____________ are both Filipino citizens, of legal ages, and residents of _____________. They may be served with notices and orders of this Honorable Court through their counsel of record, _____________, with office address at _____________;
THE FACTS 8. On 02 May 2001, Private Respondents filed a Complaint for Collection with Preliminary Attachment impleading the Petitioner and _____________ as defendants. Said complaint was docketed as Civil Case No. _____________ and was raffled to the sala of the herein Public Respondent Judge. A copy of the said Complaint is hereto attached as Annex "C"; 9. The Public Respondent then issued Summons dated 08 May 2001 for the Petitioner and _____________ to file their respective Answers within fifteen (15) days from service thereof; 10. That on 07 September 2001, Sheriff IV _____________ executed a Return of Service of Summons stating in part that: