A.M. No. 2200 July 19, 1990
Basilio C. Gutierrez, complainant, vs. Atty. Leonardo N. Zulueta, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Basilio C. Gutierrez engaged respondent Atty. Leonardo N. Zulueta as counsel in a civil case against his former employer. The trial court ruled in Gutierrez’s favor, but the employer appealed to the Court of Appeals. Gutierrez alleges that in August 1976, Atty. Zulueta wired him to send P400.00 to cover expenses for preparing and printing the appellee’s brief. Gutierrez complied, sending the money via the Philippine National Bank and informing the respondent by telegram. Atty. Zulueta later assured the complainant that the brief had been filed and a copy would be provided.
The Court of Appeals subsequently reversed the trial court’s decision, explicitly noting in its ruling that the complainant did not file a brief. Gutierrez, upon receiving this adverse decision, reported the matter to the provincial governor, as the respondent was the provincial legal counsel. An investigation failed to resolve the issue, prompting Gutierrez to file this sworn disbarment complaint for dishonesty and conduct unbecoming a lawyer, attributing the loss of his case to his counsel’s failure to file the required brief.

ISSUE

Whether or not Atty. Leonardo N. Zulueta should be held administratively liable for his failure to file the required appellee’s brief with the Court of Appeals, resulting in prejudice to his client.

RULING

Yes, the respondent is administratively liable. The Supreme Court adopted the findings and recommendation of the Office of the Solicitor General, holding that Atty. Zulueta failed to exercise the due diligence required of a member of the Bar. The Court found that the respondent’s failure to ensure the filing of the brief directly caused material prejudice to his client, as it led to the reversal of a favorable judgment. The respondent admitted receiving the P400.00 specifically for the brief’s preparation and an additional P100.00 later for securing a copy.
The Court rejected the respondent’s defense that he delegated the task to his secretary, who then allegedly left the office with the records. The legal logic is clear: a lawyer has a non-delegable duty to supervise work in his office, especially concerning court pleadings. A lawyer cannot avoid responsibility by blaming a secretary’s negligence. To countenance such a defense would allow irresponsible lawyers to evade disciplinary action by shifting blame to subordinates, undermining the profession’s standards of accountability and diligence. This failure to protect the client’s interest constitutes a violation of the lawyer’s oath and professional responsibilities. Accordingly, the Court suspended Atty. Leonardo N. Zulueta from the practice of law for one year.