GR 33639; (February, 1973) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-33639 February 28, 1973
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JULIO MACELLONES alias JULY and NOE MACELLONES, defendants-appellants, DOMINADOR L. NATIVIDAD, respondent.
FACTS
Respondent Atty. Dominador L. Natividad, counsel de parte for appellants Julio and Noe Macellones, failed to file the appellants’ brief, which was due on April 28, 1972. In a resolution dated August 17, 1972, the Supreme Court imposed a fine of P200.00 on Natividad for this failure and granted him an additional thirty-day period to file the required brief. When he again failed to comply by the extended deadline, the Court issued an order on November 3, 1972, suspending him from the practice of law.
Subsequently, Natividad persuaded his clients to withdraw their appeals. The Court approved the withdrawal of the appeals in its resolutions dated December 12 and December 29, 1972. Following this development, Natividad sought relief from the Court, asking for the remission of the fine and the revocation of his suspension.
ISSUE
Whether the Supreme Court should lift the suspension and remit the fine imposed on Atty. Natividad in light of the withdrawal of his clients’ appeals.
RULING
The Supreme Court partially granted the plea. It lifted the order of suspension but made it effective only upon payment of the P200.00 fine. The Court severely censured Natividad for his misconduct and ordered a copy of the resolution spread upon his record.
The legal logic is clear. The withdrawal of the appeals, while mitigating, did not absolve Natividad of his prior professional negligence and disobedience to the Court’s lawful orders. His failure to file the brief on time constituted a breach of his fundamental duties as a lawyer: the duty of entire devotion to the client’s interest and the duty of respect and obedience to the Court. The Court emphasized that his conduct betrayed a lack of the “warm zeal” and “utmost learning and ability” required by the Canons of Legal Ethics. His subsequent action in securing the withdrawal of the appeals did not cure the initial infraction; it merely terminated the proceeding that his negligence had stalled. The penalty imposed was already a tempered response to his “flagrant omission” and “irresponsibility.” Therefore, while the suspension could be lifted as the underlying case was closed, the financial penalty and severe censure remained necessary to uphold professional discipline and the authority of the Court.