Case Digest (A.C. No. 4809)
Facts:
Spouses William Adecer and Teresita P. Adecer v. Atty. Emmanuel Akut, Adm. Case No. 4809, May 03, 2006, the Supreme Court Third Division, Tinga, J., writing for the Court.The complainants are Spouses William and Teresita Adecer; the respondent is Attorney Emmanuel A. Akut, their counsel in Criminal Case No. 72790, “People of the Philippines v. William Adecer and Teresita Adecer,” pending before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Cagayan de Oro, Branch No. 5. The MTCC convicted the Adecers of Other Deceits in a Decision dated 12 March 1997, promulgated 26 March 1997, imposing arresto mayor and fines as well as civil liabilities totaling P66,000.
Respondent received a copy of the MTCC Decision on 25 March 1997 (and another copy on 4 April 1997). Under applicable rules, respondent had fifteen (15) days from his receipt (until 9 April 1997) to file an appeal or a petition for probation on behalf of his clients. Instead, respondent filed the Petition for Probation only on 16 May 1997, after the period had lapsed. The MTCC issued a Writ of Execution on 19 May 1997; arrest warrants were served and the Adecers were incarcerated on 20 May 1997.
Respondent filed a Memorandum in Support of the Petition for Probation (28 May 1997) asserting he had been out of town and that the Adecers believed they needed to pay the civil liabilities before seeking probation. The MTCC denied the petition by Resolution dated 7 June 1997, holding probation could not be granted after the appeal period and noting respondent was actually in Cagayan de Oro for several hearings during the critical period. A motion for reconsideration was denied on 30 June 1997.
On 29 July 1997 the Adecers filed the present administrative disbarment complaint asking that respondent be disbarred and ordered to reimburse expenses. Respondent explained in later pleadings that he had been intermittently out of town caring for his ill wife (who later died), and also contended the clients failed to meet him promptly to sign pleadings. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Investigating Commissioner Wilfredo E.J.E. Reyes investigated the case (records were briefly lost and later reconstituted), found respondent guilty of negligence, and recommended suspension for one month and admonition. The IBP Board of Governors adopted the findings but i...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Is respondent administratively liable for violating the principles of legal ethics and the Code of Professional Responsibility by filing a Petition for Probation after the reglementary period for appeal ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)