Title
Cabagui vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. L-38377
Decision Date
Oct 15, 1975
Attorney suspended for filing repetitive petitions and failing to comply with court orders, deemed gross negligence and abuse of judicial process.
Font Size:

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-38377)

Facts:

  1. Background of the Case:

    • The case involves Attorney Eugenio M. Millado, who represented Capt. Conrado M. Cabagui in a criminal case for malversation of public funds.
    • The Court of First Instance of Misamis Oriental convicted Cabagui on June 20, 1963, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction with modification on June 8, 1973.
  2. Multiple Petitions Filed:

    • Millado filed three petitions for review on behalf of Cabagui:
      • The first petition was filed on January 9, 1974, but was denied on January 15, 1974, for being filed late by 4 months and 25 days.
      • The second petition, filed on March 18, 1974, was dismissed on May 8, 1974, as it raised the same issues as the first petition.
      • The third petition, filed on November 13, 1974, was ordered expunged from the records on November 20, 1974, for being a repetitive filing.
  3. Show-Cause Resolution:

    • On November 20, 1974, the Supreme Court ordered Millado to show cause within 10 days why disciplinary action should not be taken against him for filing multiple petitions for the same cause.
    • Millado failed to comply with this resolution by the January 3, 1975 deadline.
  4. Suspension and Petition for Relief:

    • On February 7, 1975, the Court suspended Millado from the practice of law for failing to comply with the show-cause resolution.
    • On April 14, 1975, Millado filed a "Petition for Relief from Resolutions and Compliance," citing "mistake and/or excusable negligence" and apologizing for any perceived disrespect to the Court.
  5. Hearing and Memorandum:

    • The Court heard Millado on June 2, 1975, and granted him time to submit a memorandum.
    • In his memorandum, Millado continued to argue for the merits of his petitions, despite the Court's previous adverse resolutions.

Issue:

  • (Unlock)

Ruling:

  • (Unlock)

Ratio:

  1. Gross Negligence:

    • Millado's failure to comply with the show-cause resolution within the prescribed period constituted gross negligence. His belated compliance and explanation were deemed unsatisfactory.
  2. Abuse of Judicial Process:

    • Filing multiple petitions for the same cause, despite previous adverse resolutions, was an abuse of the right of recourse to the Court. Such conduct trifles with the Court and impedes the administration of justice.
  3. Sufficiency of Penalty:

    • The Court considered Millado's suspension since February 7, 1975, as sufficient punishment for his infractions. However, he was warned that future violations would be met with severe consequences.


Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.