FIRST DIVISION
[A.C.
No. 5486. August 15, 2001]
In Re: Atty. David Briones
D E C I S I O N
PUNO, J.:
This matter arose from the
continued failure of Atty. David P. Briones, counsel for accused-appellant in
G.R. No. 130965 (People of the Philippines vs. Restituto Cabacan) pending
before the Second Division of this Court, to file the required appellant's
brief.
The notice to file appellant's
brief was mailed to Atty. Briones on July 30, 1998. The registry return card shows that it was received by the
addressee on August 6, 1998. Counsel
was given thirty (30) days from receipt of the notice within which to file the
brief. Atty. Briones failed to file the
required brief within the period which expired on September 5, 1998.
On April 28, 1999, the Court
ordered Atty. Briones to show cause why he should not be disciplinarily dealt
with or held in contempt for such failure and to submit the required brief
within ten (10) days from notice. Atty.
Briones failed to comply with the Court's directive within the specified
period. Copy of said resolution was returned
to the Court unserved without specific reason.
On August 9, 1999, the Court
issued a resolution stating among others that the resolution of April 28, 1999
is considered served on Atty. Briones by substituted service pursuant to
Section 8, Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court also referred the matter of the
repeated failure of Atty. Briones to file appellant's brief to the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for evaluation, report and recommendation. The administrative case was docketed as CBD
Case No. 00-690.
In a letter dated September 27,
1999, IBP Commissioner Victoria Gonzales-De Los Reyes informed Atty. Briones of
the Court's referral of the matter to the IBP and required him to file his
Comment within five (5) days from receipt of the letter. The registry return card shows that the
letter was received by the agent of Atty. Briones on October 7, 1999. Atty. Briones, however, did not file any
Comment.
Commissioner De Los Reyes
submitted her Report dated January 25, 2000 with the following observation and
recommendation:
“Unfortunately, despite the lapse of the required period of time within which to submit his Comment, respondent failed to do so despite due notice as evidenced by the registry return card.
As can be gleaned from the files, G.R. No. 130965 has remained pending in view of the negligence of Atty. Briones to file the required appellant's brief. It is therefore evident that respondent violated Rule 18.03 of Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility to wit:
A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.
Likewise, respondent's repeated failure to file the appellant's brief and his Comment to the Commission in connection with the Supreme Court Resolution dated August 9, 1999 are apparently tantamount to wilfull disobedience to the lawful orders of the Honorable Supreme Court which could not be tolerated, and respondent should not be allowed to go scot-free.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the undersigned Commissioner finds that Atty. David P. Briones had the propensity of defying lawful orders, and recommends that for his violation of Rule 18.03 of the Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, he be SUSPENDED from the practice of law profession for a period of six (6) months.”
On March 18, 2000, the Board of
Governors of the IBP passed Resolution No. XIV-2000-56 stating:
“RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED, the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner of the above-entitled case, herein made part of this Resolution/Decision as annex "A"; and, finding the recommendation fully supported by the evidence on record and the applicable laws and rules, Respondent is SUSPENDED/or BARRED from the practice of law for six (6) months for violation of Rule 18.03 of the Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.”
On May 26, 2000, Atty. Briones
filed with the IBP a Motion for Reconsideration/Reinvestigation. The motion was grounded on the alleged
denial of due process in the course of the investigation. Atty. Briones claimed that he filed a
Comment on the administrative case but the same was not considered by the
investigating commissioner. Neither did
the IBP conduct a formal investigation.
On July 29, 2000, the Board of
Governors of the IBP issued Resolution No. XIV-2000-439 denying the motion for
reconsideration, thus:
“RESOLVED to DENY Respondent’s Motion for Reconsideration of the Board’s Decision in the above-entitled case there being no substantive reason to reverse the finding therein, moreover, the pleading is improper as the remedy of the respondent is to file the appropriate Motion with the Supreme Court within fifteen (15) days from receipt of notice of said Decision pursuant to Section 12 (c) of Rule 139-B.”
On October 5, 2000, Atty. Briones
filed with the Court a Manifestation praying that his Comment submitted to the
IBP on October 13, 2000 be considered by the Court. He attached a copy of the Comment to the Manifestation.
Atty. Briones explained both in
his Manifestation and his Comment that he failed to file an appellant’s brief
in G.R. No. 130965 because he never received a copy of the resolution requiring
him to file said brief. If ever a copy
was received by his secretary, the latter was not able to give it to him
because he had already ceased practicing law.
He further explained that the case was assigned to him as member of the
IBP Tarlac Legal Aid Office. After
filing the Notice of Appeal, he resigned from the Legal Aid Office because of
his failing health. Hence, he presumed
that the relatives of the accused would engage the services of a new counsel,
or would go directly to the IBP Legal Aid Office. He admitted that he forgot to notify the Legal Aid Office about
the case.
We adopt the recommendation of the
IBP.
The failure of the counsel to
submit the required brief within the reglementary period is an offense that
entails disciplinary action.[1] The pernicious effect of Atty. Briones’ omission
cannot be gainsaid. His failure to file
an appellant’s brief in G.R. No. 130965 has caused the appeal to remain
inactive for more than a year, to the prejudice of his client, the accused
himself, who continues to languish in jail pending the resolution of his
case. The accused in a criminal case
has the right to a swift and just disposition of his case. Lawyers are obliged to protect, not defeat,
such right.
We have considered the explanation
of Atty. Briones for his failure to comply with the Court’s directive and we
find the same unsatisfactory. Such
omission can be attributed to pure negligence on the part of Atty. Briones
which we deem inexcusable. He cannot
deny that his office received a copy of the Court’s resolution ordering him to
submit an appellant’s brief. The
registry return card shows that the notice to file appellant’s brief was
received by the addressee on August 6, 1998.
To exonerate himself from liability, Atty. Briones claims that his
secretary did not forward to him the mail matters received in his office. He, however, cannot pass the blame to his
secretary as he is personally responsible for his own communications. As a member of the Bar, he is expected to
exercise due diligence in the practice of his profession. He should not have passively waited for his
secretary to inform him about the letters and communications received in his
law office, especially those coming from the courts. He should have taken the initiative to check with her if there
are important matters requiring his action or attention. Neither is the cessation of his law practice
an excuse for his failure to file the required brief. Even if it were true that Atty. Briones has stopped practicing
law, he still could not ignore the directives coming from the Court. It does not appear from the records of G.R.
No. 130965 that Atty. Briones has withdrawn his appearance. Unless he has withdrawn his appearance in
the case, the Court would still consider him as counsel for the
accused-appellant and he is expected to comply with all its orders and
directives.
It should be stressed that every
case a lawyer accepts deserves his full attention, diligence, skill and
competence, regardless of its importance and whether he accepts it for a fee or
for free.[2] A lawyer’s fidelity to the cause of his client
requires him to be ever mindful of the responsibilities that should be expected
of him. He is mandated to exert his
best efforts to protect within the bounds of the law the interest of his
client. The Code of Professional Responsibility
dictates that a lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence and
he should never neglect a legal matter entrusted to him.[3]
IN VIEW WHEREOF, Atty. David P. Briones is SUSPENDED from the
practice of law for six (6) months effective immediately. Let a copy of this Decision be furnished to
the Office of the Bar Confidant, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and to
all the courts.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman),
Kapunan, Pardo, and Ynares-Santiago, JJ., concur.