G.R. No. A.C. No. 720; June 17, 2015
FRANCISCO CAOILE, Complainant, vs. ATTY. MARCELINO MACARAEG, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Francisco Caoile and four others engaged the services of respondent Atty. Marcelino Macaraeg to represent them in a civil case for recovery of ownership before the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Lingayen, Pangasinan. After the CFI rendered judgment against them, they decided to appeal to the Court of Appeals (CA). Atty. Macaraeg filed a notice of appeal and thrice moved for extension of time to file the appellants’ brief, alleging in his last motion that he was doing finishing touches and needed to have it printed. However, the extended period expired without the brief being filed, leading the CA to dismiss the appeal upon the opposing party’s motion; the dismissal became final and executory on December 13, 1963. Caoile alleged they only learned of the dismissal in 1965 when served with a writ of execution and notice of sale at public auction of their property. When confronted, Atty. Macaraeg informed him they lost because they failed to pay him in full, prompting Caoile to file this administrative complaint for neglect and dereliction of duty on August 16, 1966. In his Answer, Atty. Macaraeg claimed the clients did not pay in full for his services on appeal, that he advanced some appeal expenses, and that the non-filing of the brief was due to the clients’ failure to provide necessary funds for the transcript and printing, despite his constant reminders. He also referenced a pacto de retro sale executed in his favor, which he claimed was for services before the CFI and not honored as possession was never turned over. The case was referred to the Solicitor General for investigation. During proceedings, a 1972 subpoena return contained a notation that Atty. Macaraeg was deceased. The case was later transferred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), which, after attempts to contact parties, issued a Report and Recommendation finding Atty. Macaraeg violated Rule 12.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility for failing to file the brief after obtaining extensions, recommending a two-year suspension. The IBP Board of Governors modified this to a one-year suspension.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Atty. Marcelino Macaraeg should be held administratively liable for neglect of duty for failing to file the appellants’ brief, resulting in the dismissal of his clients’ appeal.

RULING

The Supreme Court found that Atty. Macaraeg violated Rule 12.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which states a lawyer shall not, after obtaining extensions of time to file pleadings, let the period lapse without submitting the same or offering an explanation. His failure to file the brief, despite three extensions, constituted neglect. His excuse of the clients’ failure to provide funds was insufficient; he should have advanced the payment or withdrawn from the case properly under the rules. However, due to supervening circumstances—specifically, records indicating Atty. Macaraeg was already deceased as noted in a 1972 subpoena return, his advanced age (he would have been 108 years old), and the complainant’s apparent loss of interest—the Court dismissed the administrative complaint. Citing Apiag v. Cantero, the Court held that an administrative case may be dismissed upon the respondent’s death during its pendency. Thus, the Complaint for Disbarment was DISMISSED.