GR L 38076 80; (August 1975) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-38076-80 August 29, 1975
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RODOLFO VENZON, defendant-appellant, Attorney ENRIQUE A. DE LA CRUZ, respondent.
FACTS
Respondent attorney Enrique A. de la Cruz, counsel for appellant Rodolfo Venzon, failed to file the required appellant’s brief by the deadline of December 22, 1974. The Supreme Court issued a resolution requiring him to explain his failure. After receiving no response for three months, the Court suspended him from the practice of law on June 2, 1975, and appointed a counsel de oficio to protect Venzon’s rights. Subsequently, de la Cruz filed an urgent motion to lift his suspension. He claimed he never received the Court’s show-cause resolution, speculating that a schoolteacher named Mrs. Ayalde might have received it at his wife’s workplace and forgotten to deliver it. He also explained his failure to file the brief by alleging that the appellant’s wife took the trial transcripts to enlist a Manila-based lawyer relative’s help but never returned them.
ISSUE
Whether the Supreme Court should lift the suspension of respondent attorney Enrique A. de la Cruz.
RULING
Yes, the suspension is lifted, but not due to the merit of his explanations. The Court found his proffered reasons unsatisfactory. His claim of non-receipt of the resolution was unsupported by an affidavit from the alleged recipient, Mrs. Ayalde. More critically, his explanation for not filing the brief revealed a failure in his professional duty; if the appellant’s wife had indeed engaged another lawyer, de la Cruz should have formally withdrawn from the case to avoid neglect of his responsibilities. However, the Court exercised leniency and lifted the suspension primarily because of a supervening event: appellant Rodolfo Venzon himself, in a handwritten notation, expressed his desire to withdraw his appeal. Venzon indicated this was due to a recommendation for parole based on his good conduct, including saving a prison officer’s life during a riot. Consequently, the need for the brief and for disciplinary action to safeguard the appellant’s rights became moot. The Court denied de la Cruz’s prayer to be appointed counsel de oficio, granted Venzon’s withdrawal of appeal, and ordered the lifting of the suspension, with a copy of the resolution to be entered into de la Cruz’s record.