ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 138649.February 14, 2001]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. SULIT et al.

SECOND DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated FEB 14 2001.

G.R. No. 138649(People of the Philippines vs. Ricardo Sulit, et. al. )

In a resolution, dated August 14, 2000, the Court required Atty. Sofronio Clavecilla, Jr., counsel for accused-appellant Ricardo Sulit, (1) to show cause why he should not be disciplinarily dealt with or held in contempt for failure to file the appellant's brief within the period granted to him and (2) to file the appellant's brief within ten (10) days from notice thereof. In a resolution, dated December 6, 2000, the Court noted the explanation of Atty. Clavecilla, Jr., dated October 30, 2000 but actually filed on November 14, 2000, as to why he failed to file the appellant's brief and granted him another extension of ten (10) days from October 30, 2000, or until November 9, 2000, within which to file the appellant's brief, with warning that the extension granted was definitely the last. However, instead of filing the appellant's brief within the period granted to him, Atty. Clavecilla, Jr. filed three more motions for extension to file the appellant's brief, to wit: (1) on December 18, 2000, on the ground that two successive typhoons, named "Reming" and "Seniang," flooded his office which required him to relocate his office equipment and books to a safer place and that electricity was cut-off for several days; (2) on December 22, 2000, on the ground that heavy workload and inconveniences caused by the typhoons prevented him from filing the brief; and (3) on January 12, 2001, on the ground that his daily court appearances and heavy workload required his immediate attention.

While the typhoon was one of the reasons which allegedly prevented counsel from filing the required appellant's brief after the 10-day extension expired on November 9, 2000, the same cannot be used as a justification for his subsequent failure to file the appellant's brief, especially considering that the Court had previously granted him a total of eighty (80) days within which to file the same. It appears that while the three subsequent motions sought an extension of 35 days, the second motion for extension, filed on December 18, 2000, was in fact filed 39 days after the due date for filing the appellant's brief on November 9, 2000. If Atty. Clavecilla, Jr. foresaw that he would not be able to file the required appellant's brief on or before November 9, 2000, he should have at least moved for an extension prior to November 9, 2000. Having failed to do so, the second to fourth motions for extension should perforce be denied for being filed beyond November 9, 2000.

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Court RESOLVED (1) to deny the second, third, and fourth motions for additional period to file the brief for accused-appellant Ricardo Sulit; (2) to find Atty. Sofronio Clavecilla, Jr. guilty of indirect contempt for failure to file the appellant's brief and impose on him a fine of ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00); and (3) to file the appellant's brief within thirty (30) days, otherwise he will be ordered arrested and detained until he complies with this resolution.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) TOMASITA M. DRIS
Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE