A.C. No. 5024; February 20, 2003
Arsenia T. Bergonia, complainant, vs. Atty. Arsenio A. Merrera, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Arsenia T. Bergonia engaged Atty. Arsenio A. Merrera as her counsel in an appeal before the Court of Appeals (CA) concerning a case for recovery of possession. The CA issued a Notice to File Appellant’s Brief on December 17, 1997. Respondent filed an Urgent Motion for Extension, which the CA granted, extending the deadline to March 17, 1998. Before this period lapsed, he filed a Second Motion for Extension, citing health reasons, which the CA also granted, setting a new deadline of April 16, 1998. Despite these two extensions, respondent failed to file the required appellant’s brief. Consequently, upon motion of the opposing party, the CA dismissed the appeal in a Resolution dated June 25, 1998.

ISSUE

Whether Atty. Arsenio A. Merrera is administratively liable for his failure to file the appellant’s brief despite being granted two extensions of time to do so.

RULING

Yes, the respondent is administratively liable. The Supreme Court affirmed the Integrated Bar of the Philippines’ recommendation for a six-month suspension from the practice of law. The Court emphasized that a motion for extension to file a pleading carries the presumption that the lawyer will file it within the extended period. Rule 12.03, Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility explicitly states that a lawyer shall not, after obtaining extensions, let the period lapse without submitting the pleading or offering an explanation for the failure.
The legal logic is grounded in the duty of candor and good faith towards the court. By seeking extensions, a lawyer represents a genuine intent and a justifiable reason to file the pleading, and the court grants the motion based on this implied trust. Respondent’s failure to file the brief without any reasonable excuse—after having been afforded ample time and despite opposing the appellee’s motion to dismiss the appeal—constituted a violation of this trust. His actions demonstrated inexcusable negligence, which misused judicial process, obstructed justice, and caused damage to his client by leading to the dismissal of her appeal. This negligence also violated Canon 18.03, which mandates that a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him. The suspension serves as a sanction for this professional misconduct.