GR L 34104; (June, 1972) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-34104. June 15, 1972.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. VICTOR SUSANO BLANCAS y ALFORQUE, accused-appellant, ATTYS. CRISTETO O. CIMAGALA, RUDOLFO E. YAP, CARLOS G. GARCIA and PAULINO G. CLARIN, respondents.
FACTS
Accused-appellant Victor Susano Blancas y Alforque, sentenced to reclusion perpetua for rape, appealed. His counsel, Atty. Cristeto O. Cimagala, was granted a 30-day extension until February 18, 1972, to file the appellant’s brief. The Court required respondents, all members of the Bar and counsels de parte, to explain their failure to file the brief after the extended period lapsed.
In his explanation, Cimagala alleged that after informing the appellant’s mother of the need to file the brief, she informed him that the parents had decided to seek executive clemency instead, relying on an alleged connection to the President. Counsel stated the parents then ceased communication, leading him and his co-counsels to believe they should not impose by filing a brief, despite their belief in an “excellent defense.”
ISSUE
Whether respondent counsels, particularly Atty. Cimagala, are administratively liable for their failure to file the required appellant’s brief.
RULING
Yes, the Court found the explanation unsatisfactory and imposed disciplinary action. The legal logic is that an attorney’s duty to the client and the court is not extinguished by mere client indecision or silence. Counsel failed in their positive duty to: (1) verify and obtain the client’s definitive instructions regarding the withdrawal of the appeal; (2) formally inform the court of any such decision to abandon the appeal; and (3) file the necessary motion to be discharged from their obligation. Their inaction, based on an “improper sense of inhibition,” constituted neglect. The Court emphasized that such conduct violates the earnest duty of a lawyer to defend client rights and to aid in the efficient administration of justice. Atty. Cristeto O. Cimagala was severely reprimanded and ordered to file the appellant’s brief within thirty days.