Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
BRANCH 113, PASAY CITY

MA. JANE RAMIREZ-CABARRUBIAS,

Petitioner,

-versus- CIVIL CASE NO. R-PSY-06-0608-CV

LUD R. CABARRUBIAS,
Respondent,
x-----------------------------------------------x

WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE

The undersigned counsel and to this Honorable Court, most respectfully

states that:

1. He is the counsel of record of petitioner Ma. Jane Ramirez-Cabarrubias

in the above- entitled case;

2. Counsel can no longer locate the whereabouts of the petitioner despite

earnest efforts. Furthermore petitioner failed to communicate to him and in the
absence of instructions from, and the cooperation of his client the undersigned
counsel is at loss as to how to proceed in the instant case. Under the
circumstances, the undersigned can no longer continue to appear before this
court for and on behalf of the petitioner.

The withdrawal of appearance by the undersigned counsel is, therefore,

warranted. This is so because in Republic of the Philippines vs. CFI of Lanao del
Norte, Branch II, et. al., 53 SCRA 317 [1973], the Supreme Court ruled that:

“x x x

But it is not inconceivable that under

peculiar circumstances, the court may be justified
in relieving a lawyer from continuing his
appearance in an action or proceeding, without
hearing a client, as, for instance, when a situation
develops, like in the case at bar where the client
 2

stops having any contact with a lawyer, who is

thereby left without the usual means which are
indispensable in the successful or, at least, proper
defense of the client’s cause, such as actual
knowledge of relevant facts., the identify of usable
witnesses, pertinent documents and other
evidence, not to speak of the money needed for
even the minimum of litigation expenses and the
possible advances of attorney’s fees.
Understandably, no responsible lawyer can be
expected to do justice to any cause under such
conditions, and, it would be an unjust imposition
to compel him to continue his services in relation
thereto. While perhaps, the absence of counsel
may create an apparent denial of the party’s
inherent right to legal assistance, in these
particular cases, it can rightly be said that in a
large sense and for obvious reasons, movant
counsel’s have it in their power to remedy the
situation.”

PRAYER
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that this Honorable Court
considers the appearance of the undersigned counsel for the petitioner, as
WITHDRAWN.

Makati City, for Pasay City, March 19, 2010.

SOCRATES C. PIGAO
Unit 245 Cityland 8, No. 98
Sen. Gil Puyat Avenue, Makati City
Roll No. 44180
IBP No. 795871/PTR No. 1602024
Jan. 05, 2010/Pasay City
MCLE Compliance No. 11-0004109
Issued on September 09, 2008

COPY FURNISHED:

The Trial Prosecutor

Branch 113
RTC Pasay City