Case Summary (G.R. No. 170181)
Background of the Case
Respondents Rillera and Yaranon were initially granted multiple extensions to file a brief on behalf of their client, Consaldo Vicente, beginning October 7, 1972. Despite several extensions, a concerning pattern of repeated requests for additional time emerged, culminating in a fifth request for a 30-day extension. The court expressed its frustration over this pattern and subsequently suspended the attorneys from practicing law on February 27, 1973, while allowing a brief filing within fifteen days of notice.
Motion to Lift Suspension
On March 20, 1973, after the attorneys complied with the court's order by finally submitting the appellant's brief, they filed a petition to lift their suspension. In their petition, they acknowledged their failure to heed prior warnings regarding extensions and expressed remorse for their actions. They also pledged to improve their diligence and commitment to their duties as members of the bar.
Court's Response and Ethical Standards
The court acknowledged the attorneys' compliance and willingness to amend their behavior in the future. It emphasized the importance of fidelity to the responsibilities that lawyers owe to their clients, the court, and the public in the administration of justice. The court remarked that the failures exhibited by Rillera and Yaranon could not be easily overlooked given the serious implications of their actions on the judicial system.
Final Resolution
Ultimately, the court granted the pet
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 170181)
Case Overview
- The case involves a petition by attorneys Romeo P. Rillera and Braulio D. Yaranon seeking the lifting of their suspension from practicing law.
- The suspension was ordered by the Supreme Court due to the attorneys' repeated requests for extensions to file a brief for the defendant-appellant, Consaldo Vicente.
Background of the Case
- The attorneys began submitting petitions for thirty-day extensions starting from October 7, 1972, claiming their workloads in various civil and criminal cases prevented them from filing the necessary brief.
- On January 29, 1973, the Court allowed them to withdraw as counsel de parte and designated them as counsel de oficio, granting an additional thirty days to file the brief but warned against further extensions.
- Despite this warning, the attorneys submitted an ex-parte petition for a fifth extension on February 10, 1973, indicating their inability to comply due to other pressing obligations.
Court's Resolution Leading to Suspension
- On February 27, 1973, the Court resolved to suspend Rillera and Yaranon from practicing law until further not