|
|
|
|
|
PEOPLE
OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
G.
R. No. L-32994
October
29, 1971
-versus-
GAUDENCIO
INGCO,
IN RE
ALFREDO
R. BARRIOS,
FERNANDO,
J.:
Respondent
Alfredo R. Barrios, a member of the
Philippine Bar, who was appointed counsel de officio for the
accused
in this case, Gaudencio Ingco, sentenced to death on September 28, 1970
for the crime of Rape with Homicide, was required in a Resolution of
this
Court on September 9, 1971 to show cause within ten days why
disciplinary
action should not be taken against him for having filed fifteen days
late
a motion for the extension of time for submitting the brief for
appellant
Ingco. The explanation came in a manifestation of September 16, 1971.
It
was therein stated that respondent "was then busy with the preparation
of the brief of one, Benjamin Apelo, pending in the Court of Appeals;
that
while he had made studies in preparation for the brief in this case,
during
such period he had to appear before courts in Manila, Quezon City,
Pasay
City, Bulacan and Pampanga; and that likewise he did file, on July 27,
1971, motions for extension in the aforesaid case of Benjamin Apelo
with
the Court of Appeals, which motions were duly granted. He would impress
on this Court then that he was misled into assuming that he had also
likewise
taken the necessary steps to file a motion for extension of time for
the
submission of his brief in this case by the receipt of the resolution
from
the Court of Appeals granting him such extension.
Clearly, it is a lame excuse that respondent did offer. By his own confession, he was woefully negligent. Considering that the accused is fighting for his life, the least that could be expected of a counsel de officio is awareness of the period within which he was required to file appellant's brief. The mere fact that according to him, his practice was extensive, requiring his appearance in courts in Manila and environs as well as the provinces of Bulacan and Pampanga, should not have lessened that degree of care necessary for the fulfillment of his responsibility. What is worse is that by sheer inattention, he would confuse the proceedings in a matter pending before the Court of Appeals with this present case. Such grave neglect of duty is deserving of severe condemnation. It is clearly unworthy of membership in the bar which requires dedication and zeal in the defense of his client's rights, a duty even more exacting when one is counsel de officio. On such an occasion, the honor and respect to which the legal profession is entitled demand the strictest accountability of one called upon to defend an impoverished litigant. He who falls in his obligation then has manifested a diminished capacity to be enrolled in its ranks. WHEREFORE,
respondent Alfredo R. Barrios is severely
reprimanded, this reprimand to be entered in his record. Castro, Teehankee, Barredo, Villamor, and Makasiar, JJ., concur. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|