[G.R. No. 126025.December 4, 2000]

PEOPLE vs. JOSELITO ALMENDRAL

SECOND DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated DEC 4 2000.

G.R. No. 126025(People vs. Joselito Almendral.)

On 19 July 2000 the Court expunged from the records the appellant's brief and required Atty. Jose B. Alvarez, counsel for accused-appellant, to show cause why he should not be disciplinarily dealt with or held in contempt for filing a brief too insufficient in form and substance. 1 Rollo, p. 97 .

In his Explanation, Atty. Alvarez claimed that his previous office at the Dizon Building, San Pedro, Laguna, was destroyed by fire, and when he went to Bi�an, Laguna, to photocopy the records in the possession of accused-appellant's father, the latter advised him not to prepare the appellant's brief anymore as they wanted to pursue the appeal themselves. But, aware of his duties as counsel, Atty. Alvarez claimed that he drafted the appellant's brief by dictating the contents thereof to his secretary with the instruction to follow the form and procedure needed in making the brief, and that thereafter, he signed the brief and hurriedly left for Buhi, Bicol, to handle another rape case. Upon his return, however, he found out that the secretary filed the brief without complying with the rules of procedure.

Quite obviously, the explanation of Atty. Alvarez is but a desperate attempt to cover up for his failure to perform his professional responsibilities as a lawyer. As counsel, he should not have relied too much on his secretary to execute such an important task considering that the fate of accused-appellant hinges principally on his appellant's brief. The two-page brief could not have been intended to amply defend accused-appellant but was filed only for the sake of complying, although not faithfully, with the Court's resolution directing counsel to file the brief.

The records reveal that Atty. Alvarez previously filed a similar two-page appellant's brief 2 Id., pp. 42-44.which was the subject of a Motion to Dismiss the Appeal 3 1d., p. 61 .filed by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) for failure to comply with the Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court, in its resolution of 22 March 1999, denied the OSG's Motion to Dismiss but required Atty. Alvarez to submit an V appellant's brief that complies with Sec. 13, Rule 44, of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. 4 1d., p. 65 .The order requiring him to file the proper appellant's brief was reiterated in the resolutions of 24 November 1999, 5 1d ., p. 80 .and 16 February 2000, 6 1d ., p. 87 .but the brief filed on 18 May 2000 7 1d ., p.91.only evinced counsel's utter lack of interest in pursuing the defense of his client. As accused-appellant himself observed in his letter to the Clerk of Court of the Second Division dated 31 January 2000 -

x x x x At kahit po mababa lamang ang antas na natapos ko sa aking pag-aaral alam ko po na hindi sapat ang mga nakasulat doon para sa aking depensa. Alam ko rin po, na kaya ganoon na lang ang ginawa ng aking abogado ay wala po kaming sapat na kakayahan pinansyal para sa aking apela.

If Atty. Alvarez was not paid his proper fees and can no longer represent accused-appellant's interest as insinuated by the latter, counsel should have opted to withdraw in accordance with Sec. 26, Rule 138, of the Rules of Court, instead of filing a worthless brief. Canon 2 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that "a lawyer shall make his services available in an efficient and convenient manner compatible with independence, integrity and effectiveness of the profession." Canon 18 thereof states that "a lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence."

Furthermore, Sec. 20, Rule 138, of the Rules of Court mandates that "it is the duty of an attorney: (i) In defense of a person accused of a crime, by all fair and honorable means, regardless of his personal opinion as to the guilt of the accused, to present every defense that the law permits to the end that no person may be deprived of life or liberty but by due process of law."

Very evidently, Atty. Alvarez has not taken to heart the values and responsibilities expected of him as a lawyer and as an officer of the Court, for which he should be appropriately sanctioned.

ACCORDINGLY, Atty. Jose B. Alvarez is SUSPENDED immediately from the practice of law for five (5) months from receipt of this Resolution and to pay a fine of P3,000.00 which he is required to pay within thirty (30) days also from receipt hereof.

Let copies of this Resolution be circularized in all courts of the land and spread on the personal records of Atty. Jose B. Alvarez.

The appearance of Atty. Perla M. Polintang of the Public Attorney's Office as counsel for accused-appellant with request to be furnished copies of court processes in this case at Public Attorney's Office, NIA Road corner East Avenue, Diliman, 1104 Quezon City, and motion for extension of thirty (30) days from 5 November 2000 within which to file appellant's brief is NOTED and GRANTED.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) TOMASITA MAGAY-DRIS


Back to Home | Back to Main

 

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

QUICK SEARCH

cralaw

 







chanrobles.com





ChanRobles Legal Resources:

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