G.R. No. L-35867. June 28, 1973.
FRANCISCO A. ACHACOSO, in his own behalf and in behalf of CAPITAL INSURANCE & SURETY CO., INC., petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, COTRAM, S.A., CAPITAL LIFE ASSURANCE CORP., JOAQUIN G. GARRIDO, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Francisco A. Achacoso filed a petition for review before the Supreme Court, seeking to overturn a Court of Appeals decision that dismissed his petition for mandamus. The mandamus action had aimed to compel a trial court to allow his appeal from an adverse judgment. Upon filing, the Court required respondents to comment. After respondents filed an extensive comment, petitioner’s counsel, Atty. Rodrigo M. Nera, moved for leave to file a reply, which the Court granted. Counsel subsequently requested and was granted two extensions, ultimately receiving a total of three extensions to file the reply. In his final motion, he assured the Court it would be the “last one requested.” However, after the last extended period lapsed, counsel filed neither the reply nor any explanation for his failure to do so.
The Court, after denying the main petition for lack of merit, required Atty. Nera to show cause why no disciplinary action should be taken against him. In his explanation, counsel claimed his inaction was due to an arrangement with his client wherein the client was to advance expenses for preparing pleadings. He stated he had informed the client of the need for funds when requesting the third extension but failed to contact him before the deadline, and the client later claimed the request was misplaced. Counsel pleaded that his failure was not intentional and was due to circumstances beyond his control, offering an apology.

ISSUE

Whether Atty. Rodrigo M. Nera should be disciplined for professional misconduct for failing to file a promised pleading after securing multiple extensions from the Court, thereby causing undue delay.

RULING

Yes, Atty. Nera is administratively liable. The Court censured the practice of counsel securing extensions and then allowing deadlines to lapse without submission or explanation, conduct that delays justice and trifles with judicial processes. The legal logic is grounded in a lawyer’s duty as an officer of the court to act with candor, diligence, and respect for court orders. While the Court acknowledged counsel’s explanation regarding his financial arrangement with his client, it found this unsatisfactory. A lawyer, upon realizing an inability to comply due to a client’s failure to provide funds, has an obligation to inform the court promptly by filing a manifestation forgoing the pleading, not by remaining silent. Counsel’s inaction after his final assurance of compliance unduly delayed the Court’s disposition of the case, as the petition could have been resolved earlier based on the respondents’ comment. His conduct demonstrated a lack of diligence and responsibility. Considering his clean record since 1953, the Court administered a reprimand with a warning that repetition would be dealt with more severely. A copy of the resolution was ordered filed in his personal record.