February 1973 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1973 > February 1973 Decisions >
G.R. No. L-33639 February 28, 1973 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JULIO MACELLONES:
FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. L-33639. February 28, 1973.]
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JULIO MACELLONES alias JULY and NOE MACELLONES, defendants-appellants, DOMINADOR L. NATIVIDAD, Respondent.
Dominador L. Natividad for Respondent.
Solicitor General for Plaintiff-Appellee.
SYLLABUS
LEGAL ETHICS; ATTORNEYS; DUTY TO FILE APPELLANT’S BRIEF ON TIME; FAILURE TO COMPLY THEREWITH IN CASE AT BAR NOT EXCUSED BY WITHDRAWAL OF APPEAL. — Where respondent in the instant case, as counsel de parte, was granted by the Court on August 17, 1972, an additional period of thirty days within which to file the brief of the accused due as far back as April 28, 1972, but still failed to do so, said counsel must be censured severely for such misconduct. The fact that he did prevail on the accused to withdraw their appeals could mitigate, but certainly could not absolve him from his non-compliance with his obligation as a member of the bar. Such conduct betrays a failure to exert that "entire devotion to the interest of the client, warm zeal in the maintenance and defense of his rights, and the exercise of his utmost learning and ability." What is worse, it reveals him as lacking in that sense of respect and obedience to the highest Tribunal of the land. He was a counsel de parte. Had he realized his inability to live up to what was required of him, he should have asked his clients to allow him to withdraw, so that they could secure the services of a member of the bar alive to his responsibility and responsive to his duty. While the accused certainly were free to withdraw their appeal, there is no telling that had they been represented by counsel less negligent in attending to a client’s interest, a review of their cases might have reduced their penal liability.
R E S O L U T I O N
FERNANDO, J.:
From an order of suspension of November 3, 1972 as well as an imposition of a fine of P200.00 in an earlier resolution of August 17 of that year, a member of the Philippine Bar, respondent Dominador L. Natividad, seeks relief. He was required to pay such fine in view of his inability, as counsel de parte, to file on behalf of the two accused Julio Macellones and Noe Macellones, their brief as appellants, due as far back as April 28, 1972. In the same resolution of August 17, he was granted an additional period of thirty days within which to do so. When the due date came, and no brief was still forthcoming, he laid himself open to the more severe sanction of suspension. Then came what must have been frantic efforts on his part to have the two accused, Julio Macellones and Noe Macellones, withdraw their appeals. That they did. Such a move elicited the approval of this Court in its resolutions of December 12, 1972 and December 29, 1972.
He would have this Court remit the fine and revoke the suspension. With the withdrawal of the appeal, the suspension could be lifted, but only upon the payment of the fine.
In a sense, respondent is not taken too harshly to task, considering that the failure to file the brief for the two accused as far back as April 28, 1972 is inexcusable. The fact that he did prevail on them to withdraw their appeals could mitigate, but certainly could not absolve him from his non-compliance with his obligation as a member of the bar. Such conduct betrays a failure to exert that "entire devotion to the interest of the client, warm zeal in the maintenance and defense of his rights, and the exercise of his utmost learning and ability." 1 What is worse, it reveals him as lacking in that sense of respect and obedience to the highest Tribunal of the land. He was a counsel de parte. Had he realized his inability to live up to what was required of him, he should have asked his clients to allow him to withdraw, so that they could secure the services of a member of the bar alive to his responsibility and responsive to his duty. 2 While the accused certainly were free to withdraw their appeal, there is no telling that had they been represented by counsel less negligent in attending to a client’s interest, a review of their cases might have reduced their penal liability.
Respondent Natividad could not have remained unaware that such flagrant omission did render precarious his good standing and did entail a liability to which he must submit with good grace. He should be appreciative of the fact that less than what such irresponsibility on his part deserved was the penalty meted out to him.
WHEREFORE, the suspension of respondent Dominador L. Natividad is lifted, effective upon the payment of the fine of P200.00 imposed on him according to the resolution of August 17, 1972. He is, however, censured severely for such misconduct. Let a copy of this resolution be spread upon his record.
Concepcion, C.J., Makalintal, Zaldivar, Castro, Teehankee, Barredo, Makasiar, Antonio and Esguerra, JJ., concur.
He would have this Court remit the fine and revoke the suspension. With the withdrawal of the appeal, the suspension could be lifted, but only upon the payment of the fine.
In a sense, respondent is not taken too harshly to task, considering that the failure to file the brief for the two accused as far back as April 28, 1972 is inexcusable. The fact that he did prevail on them to withdraw their appeals could mitigate, but certainly could not absolve him from his non-compliance with his obligation as a member of the bar. Such conduct betrays a failure to exert that "entire devotion to the interest of the client, warm zeal in the maintenance and defense of his rights, and the exercise of his utmost learning and ability." 1 What is worse, it reveals him as lacking in that sense of respect and obedience to the highest Tribunal of the land. He was a counsel de parte. Had he realized his inability to live up to what was required of him, he should have asked his clients to allow him to withdraw, so that they could secure the services of a member of the bar alive to his responsibility and responsive to his duty. 2 While the accused certainly were free to withdraw their appeal, there is no telling that had they been represented by counsel less negligent in attending to a client’s interest, a review of their cases might have reduced their penal liability.
Respondent Natividad could not have remained unaware that such flagrant omission did render precarious his good standing and did entail a liability to which he must submit with good grace. He should be appreciative of the fact that less than what such irresponsibility on his part deserved was the penalty meted out to him.
WHEREFORE, the suspension of respondent Dominador L. Natividad is lifted, effective upon the payment of the fine of P200.00 imposed on him according to the resolution of August 17, 1972. He is, however, censured severely for such misconduct. Let a copy of this resolution be spread upon his record.
Concepcion, C.J., Makalintal, Zaldivar, Castro, Teehankee, Barredo, Makasiar, Antonio and Esguerra, JJ., concur.
Endnotes:
1. Canon 15 of the Canons of Legal Ethics, adopted by the Philippine Bar Association of 1917.
2. Cf. People v. Tigulo, L-34334, May 12, 1972, 45 SCRA 1.
