A.M. No. 1582. February 28, 1979.
ENEDENA AGAWA VDA. DE ORIBIANA, complainant, vs. ATTY. FIDENCIO H. GERIO, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Enedena Agawa Vda. de Oribiana filed an administrative complaint for disbarment against her counsel, Atty. Fidencio H. Gerio. She alleged that in CA- G.R. No. 54297 -R, where she was the appellee, respondent failed to file the required appellee’s brief despite repeated demands, committing malpractice and gross misconduct. She further claimed that in June 1975, she sought new counsel to prepare the brief, but respondent refused to turn over the case records despite a formal demand letter.
In his answer, respondent contended he attended to the case with care but was constrained by complainant’s failure to pay his promised fees and to provide funds for printing the brief. He asserted that complainant only paid P340.00 of the P1,500.00 agreed fee and failed to furnish the needed transcript of stenographic notes or the P400.00 he instructed her to prepare for printing costs. Being of modest means, he argued it was not his obligation to advance these expenses. Regarding the records, he averred they were with the Court of Appeals and turnover was unnecessary as the appeal had been submitted for decision, and he retained a lien over the papers due to unpaid fees.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Atty. Fidencio H. Gerio is administratively liable for his failure to file the appellee’s brief within the reglementary period.

RULING

Yes, respondent is administratively liable. The Supreme Court found his principal defense—the client’s inability to pay for printing costs—insufficient to justify his failure to file the brief. A lawyer’s duty to the client and the court is paramount. Respondent could have sought permission from the Court of Appeals to file a typewritten or mimeographed brief, or at the very least, informed the court of his difficulties. His inaction constituted negligence. The Court distinguished the case from Requio v. Dy-Liaco, where the client had abandoned the appeal; here, complainant persistently demanded the brief’s filing and even engaged new counsel, showing no intent to abandon.
However, the Court considered mitigating circumstances. The Court of Appeals ultimately affirmed the trial court’s judgment in favor of complainant on March 7, 1977. Furthermore, respondent, with complainant’s apparent consent, continued to represent her by filing a motion for execution of the judgment. This continued lawyer-client relationship was deemed an extenuating factor, indicating that complainant did not perceive her case as irreparably prejudiced by the delay. Consequently, instead of suspension or disbarment, the Court imposed the penalty of REPRIMAND upon Atty. Fidencio H. Gerio, with an admonition to be more circumspect in fulfilling his duties to his client and the courts.