Republic of the Philippines

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Branch XXX, Marikina City

XXX and YYY

Plaintiffs,
CIVIL CASE NO. XXXXXX
– versus –
For: DAMAGES with prayer for
Preliminary Injunction and
Temporary Restraining Order.
AAA and BBB,
Defendants.
x-----------------------------------------------------x

COMMENT AND OPPOSITION

(to “Motion for Substitution of Counsel with Entry of Appearance”)

COME NOW counsel on record for the Plaintiffs in the above

entitled case and unto this Honorable Court by way of Comment and
Opposition to “Motion for Substitution of Counsel with Entry of
Appearance”, respectfully states:

1. That the undersigned counsel has been in the practice of law

for fifty-one (51) years this coming March 18, 2018;

2. That to be candid to everyone, this is the first time that herein

counsel has encountered such Motion for Substitution as filed
by counsel Atty. ZZZ, and who hastily filed his Formal Entry of
Appearance for the Plaintiffs;

3. That Atty. ZZZ alleged irreconcilable differences of herein

counsel and Plaintiffs. Hence, the filing of the instant “Motion
for Substitution of Counsel with Entry of Appearance”;

4. Herein counsel maintains that the alleged irreconcilable

differences of herein counsel and Plaintiffs is an imaginary
scenario. The important thing is Atty. ZZZ should have complied
with the Rules on Substitution of Counsel; which in this case he
failed to observe. First, there was no conformity on the part of
herein counsel to be substituted. Second, no copy of the
“Motion for Substitution of Counsel with Entry of Appearance”
was ever furnished to herein counsel as shown by copy of the
instant motion itself which was filed in court. It was only due to
the timely effort of herein counsel who made case status

Page 1 of 3
 verification that he found out in the motion itself that no copy
was furnished to herein counsel;

5. In the case of Salvador O. Mojar, et al. vs. Agro Commercial

Security Service Agency, Inc., et al., G.R. No. 187188, June 27,
2012, the Supreme Court raised the following requirements for
valid substitution of counsel under Rule 138 Section 26 of the
Rules of Court, thus:

(1) the filing of a written application for substitution;

(2) the client's written consent;
(3) the consent of the substituted lawyer if such
consent can be obtained; and,
(4) in case such written consent cannot be
procured,a proof of service of notice of such
motion on the attorney to be substituted in the
manner required by the Rules. x x x.

6. That herein counsel as officer of the court would like to state

that Atty. ZZZ is travelling along the pathway of unethical
practice; by simply stating there was irreconcilable differences
between herein counsel and Plaintiffs. Said counsel failed to
exercise prudence and propriety in not communicating with
counsel for the Plaintiffs by inquiring as to the allegation of the
Plaintiffs regarding said irreconcilable differences. The
undersigned counsel take exception to such flimsy, unilateral,
and baseless assertion of irreconcilable differences

7. Atty. ZZZ is a practitioner from Marikina City and the

undersigned counsel for Plaintiffs is also from Marikina City.
Atty. ZZZ knew Atty. CCC well;

8. Herein counsel is registering his comment and opposition to the

“Motion for Substitution of Counsel with Entry of Appearance”
for the reason that he wishes not to entertain the idea that a
brother in the profession will make such unethical pleadings.
Regret to say, he failed to ask for written withdrawal of herein
counsel on the basis of unilateral, flimsy allegation of
irreconcilable differences;

9. That the undersigned counsel does not wish to cling to this

case, had it not to point out the impropriety and unethical
practice committed by a brother in the profession in not
observing the requirements of valid substitution of counsel;

10. That prior to instant “Motion for Substitution of Counsel with

Entry of Appearance” said Atty. ZZZ has already manifested
impropriety and interference in the same case handled by

Page 2 of 3
 herein counsel by proposing that said counsel be taken in as
another counsel for the Plaintiffs;

11. Herein counsel likewise wishes to point out that perusal of the
Motion for Substitution of Appearance does not even bear or
indicate the address of Atty. ZZZ;

12. That in the name of ethical practice, this comment is being

registered to apprise said counsel of his improper,
inappropriate, unethical practices.

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that this Comment and

Opposition be properly put into the record of the case to give a
chance of said counsel to ponder whether his professional actuation
is proper and ethical.

Marikina City
February 20, 2018

Explanation: Distance, time and lack of personnel are reasons why

copy of this “Comment and Opposition (to “Motion for Substitution of
Counsel with Entry of Appearance”)” was sent to Counsel for the
Defendants via registered mail. Further, copy for Atty. Manuel V.
Regondola has been furnished to Plaintiffs’ address via registered mail
for the reason that said counsel failed to indicate his address in his
entry of appearance.

Page 3 of 3