G.R. No. L-36138 – 55 SCRA 486 – Legal Ethics – Duty of Counsel to His Client – Failure of Client to Raise Funds for Appeal
Antonio Rosqueta, Jr. and two others were convicted of a crime. They appeal their conviction until it reached the Supreme Court. Their lawyer (counsel de parte), Atty. Gregorio Estacio, failed to file their Brief. And so the Supreme Court ordered Atty. Estacio to show why he should not be disciplined for failure to file said Brief. Atty. Estacio failed yet again to submit his explanation. The Supreme Court then suspended him from the practice of law except for the purpose of filing the Brief in this particular case. Atty. Estacio then filed a Motion for Reconsideration where he explained that he did actually prepare an explanation the same being left with Rosqueta, Sr. (father of accused) for the latter to mail it. But then Rosqueta Sr.’s house burned down together with the explanation. He only came to know of this fact when he was preparing for the Motion for Reconsideration.
Atty. Estacio also explained that his clients are withdrawing their appeal by reason of their failure to raise the needed fund for the appeal.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Estacio’s suspension should continue.
HELD: No. His liability is mitigated. But the Supreme Court noted that Atty. Estacio has been irresponsible, has been negligent and inattentive to his duty to his clients. Atty. Estacio should be aware that even in those cases where counsel de parte is unable to secure from his clients or from their near relatives the amount necessary to pursue the appeal, that does not necessarily conclude his connection with the case. He should be aware that in the pursuance of the duty owed this Court as well as to a client, he cannot be too casual and unconcerned about the filing of pleadings. It is not enough that he prepares them; he must see to it that they are duly mailed. Such inattention as shown in this case is inexcusable.
