AC 4809; (May, 2006) (Digest)
G.R. No. A.C. No. 4809. June 27, 2006
SPOUSES WILLIAM ADECER and TERESITA P. ADECER, Complainants, vs. ATTY. EMMANUEL AKUT, Respondent.
FACTS
Spouses William and Teresita Adecer were convicted of Other Deceits by the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) of Cagayan de Oro. Their counsel, Atty. Emmanuel Akut, received a copy of the adverse decision on March 25, 1997. The decision was promulgated on March 26, 1997, and the complainants received their copy via mail on April 4, 1997. The period to file either an appeal or a petition for probation expired on April 9, 1997. However, respondent filed a Petition for Probation only on May 16, 1997, long after the decision had become final and executory. Consequently, a writ of execution was issued, and the complainants were arrested and incarcerated. The MTCC denied the petition for being filed out of time and noted respondent’s conflicting explanations for the delay, including claims of being out of town, which contradicted court records showing he attended hearings in Cagayan de Oro during the critical period.
ISSUE
Whether Atty. Emmanuel Akut is administratively liable for violating the Code of Professional Responsibility for his failure to file a timely petition for probation, resulting in his clients’ imprisonment.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court found respondent administratively liable. The legal logic is anchored on the lawyer’s fundamental duty of diligence. Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility mandates that a lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence. Specifically, Rule 18.03 requires a lawyer to not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him. Respondent’s failure to file the petition within the reglementary period constituted gross negligence. His shifting and inconsistent excuses—initially claiming he was out of town, then later alleging his clients failed to meet with him—were deemed unworthy of credence, especially given the MTCC’s finding that he was actually attending to other cases locally during the appeal period. This neglect directly caused the finality of the judgment and his clients’ deprivation of liberty. The Court emphasized that a lawyer’s duty to exercise due diligence persists regardless of the client’s actions and is not excused by personal circumstances, such as his claim of attending to his ill wife. His conduct fell short of the standard of care required, warranting disciplinary action. The Court suspended him from the practice of law for one year.