GR L 34092; (July, 1972) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-34092 July 29, 1972
The People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Victor Villar, Jr. alias “Jun Fruto”, defendant, Reynaldo Repulloso, defendant-appellant, Senen S. Burgos, respondent.
FACTS
Respondent Atty. Senen S. Burgos, acting as counsel de oficio for appellant Reynaldo Repulloso, was required by the Supreme Court to explain his failure to file the appellant’s brief on time. In his explanation, he stated that he had to leave for Albay on April 28, 1972, to settle agrarian troubles involving his late father’s estate. Before departing, he entrusted the final draft of the brief and the case papers to his clerk-typist with instructions to type and file it by May 2, 1972, or to request a five-day extension if needed.
Upon his return to Manila on May 16, 1972, he discovered that the clerk-typist had been absent since May 2 and had neither typed the brief nor requested an extension. Atty. Burgos then typed the brief himself, a slow process, and filed it on May 25, 1972. He attributed the delay to this unfortunate chain of circumstances beyond his control.
ISSUE
Whether Atty. Senen S. Burgos’s explanation for the late filing of the appellant’s brief constitutes a satisfactory excuse that exonerates him from professional responsibility.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court found the explanation unsatisfactory and admonished Atty. Burgos. The legal logic is that a lawyer, especially one serving as counsel de oficio, bears a non-delegable duty to the court and client to be vigilant in meeting court deadlines. The Court recognized his need to attend to family matters but emphasized his lack of due diligence. He was aware the brief was due in only four days, a period including a Saturday, a Sunday, and a legal holiday, yet he left without ensuring it was ready or filing a motion for extension himself.
Entrusting the critical tasks of final preparation, signing, and filing solely to a clerk-typist, without even instructing his law partner to oversee the matter, constituted carelessness. The circumstances were not fortuitous but resulted from his own failure to take adequate precautions. Therefore, while the negligence was not of the gravest degree, it represented a failure in the standard of care required of a member of the bar, warranting an admonition.