Title
Spouses Galen vs. Paguirigan
Case
A.C. No. 5558
Decision Date
Mar 7, 2002
Lawyer suspended for six months and ordered to refund P10,000 for failing to file appellee’s brief and petition for review on time, violating professional duty of competence and diligence.
attorney
suspended
practicing law

Case Summary (A.C. No. 5558)

Factual Background

The complainants were defendants in Civil Case No. 673 (entitled Jaime Estenor v. Sps. Lolita Galen & Romy Galen) and were represented by the respondent. Judgment was rendered in favor of the complainants on November 6, 1995. Relying on the respondent’s representation, the complainants continued his services when the plaintiff appealed to the Court of Appeals.

In October 1997, the complainants were informed that the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s decision. Upon inquiry, they learned that, despite notice, the respondent failed to file an appellees brief on their behalf. When confronted, the respondent assured them that he would seek a review of the Court of Appeals’ decision in the Supreme Court. For this purpose, the complainants gave him P10,000.00 for docket fees and other expenses.

On October 14, 1997, the respondent filed a motion for extension of time to file a petition for review on certiorari. The Supreme Court granted the motion in a resolution dated November 19, 1997. The respondent then filed the petition on November 20, 1997, but it was denied for being filed out of time; the due date was November 14, 1997. On April 16, 1999, the complainants received a writ of execution issued by the trial court, and only then did they learn that their petition had been denied by the Supreme Court. They contended that the respondent’s gross negligence deprived them not only of their money but, more critically, of the residential lot where their homes were built.

IBP Proceedings and Recommended Disposition

The complaint was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Commission on Bar Discipline for investigation. On July 19, 2000, the IBP submitted a report recommending that the respondent be suspended from the practice of law for six (6) months. The IBP Board of Governors approved the recommendation in a resolution dated October 27, 2001, and it was indorsed to the Supreme Court for final approval pursuant to Rule 139-B, 12(b), Rules of Court. On December 27, 2001, the respondent filed what was treated as a petition for review.

Respondent’s Defenses

The respondent claimed that he had agreed to represent the complainants without remuneration, after their former counsel, Atty. Josephine Eduarte, withdrew. He asserted that he exerted his best efforts and achieved a favorable judgment at the trial level. He maintained that he did not file an appellees brief because, although required, he believed it was not mandatory in the sense that the appellate court would have the entire records for review.

With respect to the Supreme Court petition that was denied for tardiness, the respondent explained that he did not file it before November 14, 1997 because he thought the thirty-day extension would be reckoned from the date the Supreme Court granted his motion, rather than from the expiration of the reglementary period. He claimed he filed the petition on November 20, 1997 before receiving the resolution dated November 19, 1997. He argued that the Supreme Court acted belatedly on his motion because the extension he sought was supposed to expire on November 14, 1997, yet the Court granted it only on November 19, 1997. He further claimed that, as a show of diligence, he filed a motion for reconsideration of the resolution denying the petition, and that when a motion for execution was filed by the plaintiff in the trial court, he opposed it. He thus prayed for dismissal of the complaint for lack of merit.

Issues Raised by the Complaint

The case centered on whether the respondent committed professional misconduct through gross negligence: specifically, (a) failure to file an appellees brief in the Court of Appeals, and (b) failure to timely file a petition for review on certiorari in the Supreme Court despite an extension being granted, resulting in denial and execution.

The Court’s Legal Findings and Reasoning

After reviewing the record, the Court found no basis to reverse the IBP’s findings. The Court held that the respondent was clearly negligent in the performance of his duties. He admitted failing to file the appellees brief. His excuse—that he was confident the trial court’s decision would be affirmed—was considered flimsy and indicative of a cavalier attitude toward the clients’ cause.

The Court acknowledged that the failure to file an appellees brief is not, by itself, a ground for an adverse ruling against the appellee in the same manner that failure to file an appellants brief may lead to dismissal of an appeal. Nevertheless, the Court emphasized that the importance of filing the appellees brief could not be denied. It reasoned that, on appeal, the appellate court is not in a position to hear testimony firsthand, and it must place great reliance on the briefs and memoranda of the parties. Thus, failure to submit these pleadings could be fatal to the client’s cause. Relying on its prior rulings, the Court reiterated that an attorney’s failure to submit the brief within the reglementary period entails disciplinary action because it constitutes not only dereliction to the client but also disregard of the court and the orderly administration of justice. The Court cited the doctrine that an attorney is bound to protect the client’s interest with utmost diligence, and that failure to file a brief constitutes inexcusable negligence, violating not only the duty owed to the client but also the duty to avoid delay and to aid the speedy administration of justice.

The Court further found a second, more consequential lapse. It held that the respondent did not only fail to file the appellees brief; he also lost, through default, the benefit of the extension he had been granted. After obtaining a thirty-day extension to file the petition for review before the Supreme Court, he still failed to file the petition within the extended period. The Court rejected his explanation that the Supreme Court acted on his motion near the end of the period. The Court held that the respondent’s claim showed ignorance of two basic procedural principles: first, that a party cannot presume that a motion will be granted; and second, that an extension granted is counted from the last day of the reglementary period or the last period of extension previously sought and/or granted. The Court stated that this counting rule is crucial because, absent that framework, the period becomes inextendible.

For this reason, the Court held the respondent guilty of violating Rule 12.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, w

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms