In Re: Lope Adriano

G.R. No. L-26868 – 136 Phil. 375 – 27 SCRA 106 – Legal Ethics – Duty of de oficio counsel

Remigio Estebia was convicted of rape and was sentenced to death. In 1966, the Supreme Court appointed Atty. Lope Adriano as Estebia’s counsel on appeal. Adriano was directed to submit an appeal brief within 30 days from receipt of the notice. Adriano asked for extension to file the brief five times. He kept on manifesting that the brief is halfway done.

On his final deadline in April 1967, no brief was submitted. Thereafter, he was directed to explain why he should not be disciplined. He did not submit any explanation despite being warned and despite the lapse of more than one year from the warning.

ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Adriano should be disciplined.

HELD: Yes. A lawyer appointed as counsel for an indigent prisoner should always exert his or her best efforts in the indigent’s behalf. For two years, Adriano did nothing. The record of the case consists of merely 31 pages. In his motions for extension, Adriano kept on intimating that he was working on the appeal brief yet it turned out that he was doing nothing. In the face of the fact that no brief has ever been filed, his statements in his motions for extension have gone down to the level of empty and meaningless words; at best, have dubious claim to veracity.

As counsel de oficio, Adriano has as high a duty to Estebia as one employed and paid by Estebia himself. Estebia expected of him due diligence, not mere perfunctory representation. The paradox that responsibility is less where the defended party is poor is unacceptable. Courts should “have no hesitancy in demanding high standards of duty of attorneys appointed to defend indigent persons charged with crime.”

Adriano’s liability is compounded by his inaction in the show-cause orders issued by the Supreme Court. Such is a manifest disrespect to the Supreme Court. He was suspended for one year.

Read full text.