Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1970 > August 1970 Decisions > G.R. No. L-30543 August 31, 1970 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. RODRIGO CAWILI:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-30543. August 31, 1970.]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RODRIGO CAWILI, Defendant-Appellant.


R E S O L U T I O N


FERNANDO, J.:


The question before us is whether or not Hospicio O. Zapata, a member of the Philippine Bar, is to be subjected to disciplinary action. He was, under our resolution of August 3, 1970, 1 given a period of ten days after receipt thereof to explain why no such action should be taken against him in view of his failure to submit the brief as counsel de parte within the reglementary period. He filed an explanation in a memorandum submitted to us on August 22, 1970, admitting that he was remiss in his obligation to file said brief, but seeking to minimize such failure on his part with the allegation that the accused, Rodrigo Cawili, was in a state of indigence resulting not being paid but also in his partly assuming the expenses entailed in such defense. After invoking such circumstances as the expenses incident on the printing of the brief being beyond the power of the wife of the accused to bear and that he was not called upon to continue spending on behalf of such client, he would have us overlook his failure to file the brief as in his opinion "the mere review of the record of the case will readily show that the decision is contrary to law and the evidence adduced during the trial, . . ." 2 He did tender his apology, coupled with a promise that an incident of such character will not be repeated in the future.

It cannot be denied that the failure of counsel to submit the brief within the reglementary period is an offense that entails disciplinary action. The recital of the circumstances on which counsel would seek to reduce its gravity do not call for exculpation. He could have sought the permission to file a mimeographed brief, or, at the very least, he could have informed us of the difficulties attendant on defending his client. For him to blithely assume that a mere reading of the record would suffice to discharge an obligation not only to his client but to this Court is to betray a degree of irresponsibility. It is not in keeping, even, with the minimal standards expected of membership in the bar to be so lacking in elementary courtesy that this Court was not even informed of his inability to comply with what was incumbent on him. His conduct was therefore inexcusable, although the explanation he tendered and the difficulties under which he worked would, to a certain degree, invite less than full punishment.

WHEREFORE, respondent Hospicio O. Zapata is hereby reprimanded for his failure to submit his brief within the reglementary period, and admonished to be much more careful in the fulfillment of his obligations to his client and to this honorable Tribunal.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Castro, Barredo, Villamor and Makasiar, JJ., concur.

Teehankee, J., is on official leave.

Endnotes:



1. The resolution reads as follows: "In L-30543, People v. Cawili, this Court, after considering that the accused, Rodrigo Cawili, requested to have counsel to defend him, his counsel de parte, Atty. Hospicio Zapata, having failed to file his brief within the period which expired on June 11, 1970, and after taking note of the explanation of such failure on the part of such counsel de parte which is far from satisfactory, resolved to grant the request of the accused to have a counsel de oficio appointed for him and to require Atty. Hospicio Zapata to explain within a period of ten days after receipt of this resolution why no disciplinary action should be taken against him for his failing to submit the brief for the accused within the reglementary period."cralaw virtua1aw library

2. Explanation, paragraph 8.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






August-1970 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-24491 August 11, 1970 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. RUFINO GENSOLA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19641 August 14, 1970 - GREGORIO RESUENA, ET AL. v. MARCIAL BAS

  • G.R. No. L-29338 August 15, 1970 - FIREMEN’S FUND INSURANCE COMPANY v. CIA. GENERAL DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23075 August 19, 1970 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. HON. ANDRES REYES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25845 August 25, 1970 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. BRUNO ANTONIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26494 August 31, 1970 - SONIO PALANCA, ET AL. v. HON. VICENTE CUSI, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28228 August 31, 1970 - JULIO OZAMIZ v. HON. MARIANO ZOSA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28736 August 31, 1970 - DIOGENES F. VILLAREAL v. MANUEL SANTOS

  • G.R. No. L-29961 August 31, 1970 - NETRAN, INC. v. BACOLOD CITY, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-31566 & L-31847 August 31, 1970 - ROGELIO O. TIGLAO v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23188 August 31, 1970 - PHILAM MINING, INC. v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 141-J August 31, 1970 - SERGIO F. DEL CASTILLO v. HON. RAFAEL C. CLIMACO

  • G.R. No. L-23618 August 31, 1970 - LUZON SURETY CO., INC. v. CITY OF BACOLOD, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24008 August 31, 1970 - QUIRINO SORIANO v. PARSONS HARDWARE CO., INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24017 August 31, 1970 - FRANCISCO P. MARTINEZ v. UNITED FINANCE CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24307 August 31, 1970 - TAN KA HO, ET AL. v. COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION

  • G.R. No. L-25388 August 31, 1970 - TIMOTEO SIMSIM v. HON. JUDGE FELICIANO BELMONTE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25608 August 31, 1970 - IN RE: CHOA TION CHONG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. L-26476 August 31, 1970 - IN RE: DR. FERNANDO P. HOFILEÑA, ET AL. v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. L-26625 August 31, 1970 - KEE BOC v. DIRECTOR OF PATENTS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28998 August 31, 1970 - EMETERIO ORBE v. HON. ENRlQUE B. INTING, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29792 August 31, 1970 - ARSENIO DELA CRUZ, ET AL. v. POTENCIANO REANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-32008 August 31, 1970 - ERNESTO VILLALON v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26762 August 31, 1970 - PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE CO. v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. L-26810 August 31, 1970 - ROSARIO SANTOS VDA. DE BONIFACIO, ET AL. v. B.L.T. BUS CO., INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-31463 August 31, 1970 - F. REYES CABIGAO, ET AL. v. ANTONIO J. VILLEGAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-31347 August 31, 1970 - JOSE C. LUCIANO v. JOHNNY WILSON, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. L-165-J August 31, 1970 - ILUMINADO S. ESPINAS v. HON. PERFECTO QUICHO

  • G.R. Nos. L-30006-07 August 31, 1970 - CONRADO C. DE JESUS, ET AL. v. HON. FELIX R. DOMINGO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19829 August 31, 1970 - IN RE: REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO CO KENG

  • G.R. No. L-23290 August 31, 1970 - PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE CO. v. FREE TELEPHONE WORKERS’ UNION (PAFLU), ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23762 August 31, 1970 - ROSARIO VARGAS v. PHILIPPINE AMERICAN EMBROIDERIES, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23916 August 31, 1970 - PACIFIC MERCHANDISING CORPORATION v. DIESTRO LOGGING DEVELOPMENT CORP., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25800 August 31, 1970 - EMETERIO A. BUYCO, ET AL. v. HON. MARIANO A. ZOSA

  • G.R. No. L-30543 August 31, 1970 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. RODRIGO CAWILI

  • G.R. No. L-27751 August 31, 1970 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. HON. GAUDENCIO CLORIBEL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27807 August 31, 1970 - LEONORA S. PALMA v. HON. JOSE ORETA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28056 August 31, 1970 - ECONOMIC INSURANCE CO., INC. v. UY REALTY CO., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26990 August 31, 1970 - VENANCIO LIM, SR. v. SEC. OF AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-30303 August 31, 1970 - ANTONIO FALCON v. ISMAEL MATHAY, SR.

  • G.R. No. L-31622 August 31, 1970 - JOSE C. LUCIANO v. MAXIMO ESTRELLA, ET AL.