G.R. No. L-16731 – 107 Phil. 612 – Legal Ethics – Negligence of a Lawyer – Acts that should not be delegated by a lawyer; computation of prescriptive periods are to be done by lawyers
In 1956, Felipe Eco was granted a private woodland registration certification by the Bureau of Forestry but the same was later cancelled by the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources (Juan De Rodriguez) due to numerous oppositions and also by reason of Eco’s refusal to submit to a formal investigation. Eco questioned the decision before the court but the trial court affirmed the Secretary’s decision. In 1958, Eco filed a notice of appeal and also posted the required appeal bond. This was opposed because Eco filed it out of time. Eco argued that the delay is due to excusable negligence. The alleged negligence consisted of the erroneous computation by Eco’s counsel’s clerk of the period within which an appeal may be made, said clerk being of the impression that the prescriptive period to appeal in certiorari cases is also 30 days like in ordinary civil actions instead of 15 days.
ISSUE: Whether or not the delay is excusable.
HELD: No. What was delegated by Eco’s counsel to his clerk was the computation itself of the period within which the appropriate pleading may be filed. This act is hardly prudent or wise. The duty to compute the period to appeal is a duty that devolves upon the attorney which he cannot and should not delegate unto an employee because it concerns a question of study of the law and its application, and the Supreme Court considers this to be a delicate matter that should not be delegated. The negligence here cannot, therefore, be considered excusable.
