ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. Nos. 131867-68.July 4, 2001]

PEOPLE v. SISTOSO

EN BANC

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUL 4 2001.

G.R. Nos. 131867-68.(People vs. Laureano Sistoso y Defranco @ "Yayan".)

On 20 February 2001 we issued a Resolution requiring Atty. Alexander H. Lim. Counsel for accused-appellant, to explain within ten (10) days from notice why he should not be cited for contempt for his failure to file the required Reply Brief and to comply with Sec. 26, Rule 138, of the Revised Rules of Court, instead of abandoning the cause of his client in midstream.We also required counsel to file the Reply Brief within twenty (20) days from receipt of the Resolution.

In his EXPLANATION, Atty. Lim claimed that his failure to file the Reply Brief was neither a willful disregard of the Resolution of the Court nor an attempt to undermine accused-appellant's case, but was merely a result of an honest mistake and belief arising from a confluence of events.He alleged that sometime in January of 1999 accused-appellant's wife informed him that her family obtained the services of another lawyer, who could have better access to the Supreme Court, to collaborate with him considering that he was based in Tagbilaran City.He also argued that since the new lawyer they were getting was to collaborate with him in further proceedings, he did not, as he was not obliged to, file a motion to withdraw as counsel pursuant to Sec. 26, Rule 138, of the Revised Rules of Court, and was in fact happy that the family was able to get a collaborating counsel to assist accused-appellant; and, that when he received copy of plaintiff-appellee's brief from the Office of the Clerk of Court filed by the Office of the Solicitor General, the first page of which bearing the name of Atty. Francisco U. Bulseco, Jr., as counsel for accused-appellant, it confirmed to him what accused-appellant's wife had told him earlier that a new lawyer was to substitute him, so that the order to file Reply Brief must be directed to the new counsel; and that, further, it was in deference to the wishes of accused-appellant and his family to be represented by another counsel that he refrained from filing a Reply Brief.

We find the explanation not satisfactory.Considering the gravity of the offense charged and that, after all, the supposed address of Atty. Bulseco, Jr. is Aparri, Cagayan, which is hundreds of kilometers away from Supreme Court, Atty. Lim should have verified first whether he had in fact been replaced by Atty. Bulseco, Jr., and then complied with Sec. 26, Rule 138, of the Rules of Court, instead of simply presuming that he was no longer counsel of accused-appellant.In fact, further investigation would have enlightened him that the Office of the Solicitor General simply made a mistake in naming Atty. Francisco U. Bulseco, Jr., as counsel for accused-appellant.

The filing by Atty. Lim of accused-appellant's Reply Brief, which barely occupied two (2) pages, only bolsters this Court's belief that counsel has already lost interest in his client's cause and has abandoned him in midstream, and that he only filed his haphazardly prepared Reply Brief to avoid being sanctioned by this Court.

WHEREFORE, Atty. Alexander H. Lim, counsel for accused-appellant, is declared in CONTEMPT of court for abandoning his client by not filing the required Reply Brief within the period prescribed by this Court, and without complying with Sec. 26, Rule 138, of the Revised Rules of Court, if indeed he had already been substituted as counsel; consequently, Atty. Lim is ORDERED to pay a fine of P5,000.00 within ten (10) days, and to file a more substantial Reply Brief within fifteen (15) days, both periods to be counted from receipt of this Resolution.Panganiban, Quisumbing and Santiago, JJ., abroad on official business.Reyes, J., is on leave.

Very truly yours,

LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO
Clerk of Court

(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA

Asst. Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE