G.R. No. L-39087 August 29, 1975
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ROGELIO DE JESUS Y QUIZON, Alias “ELIONG”, defendant-appellant, Attorney BENITO A. MENDOZA, respondent.

FACTS

Respondent Atty. Benito A. Mendoza, counsel for appellant Rogelio de Jesus, failed to file the required appellant’s brief by its due date of January 17, 1975. The Supreme Court issued a resolution on February 5, 1975, requiring him to show cause why no disciplinary action should be taken. He did not comply. The Court then imposed a P200 fine and gave him an additional 15 days to file the brief via a resolution dated April 4, 1975. He again failed to comply, leading to a resolution on May 30, 1975, which ordered his suspension from the practice of law, the circularization of his suspension, and the appointment of a counsel de oficio for the appellant.
Atty. Mendoza filed a motion for reconsideration. He explained that his failure stemmed from an oral agreement with the appellant’s father to shoulder expenses, but the father could no longer be located. He claimed he attempted to contact the father via a telegram and visited the appellant in prison. He also asserted he did not receive the Court’s resolutions of February 5 and April 4, 1975, due to his frequent change of address in Isabela and the possibility that the notices were received by boarders who did not inform him. He stated he only received the May 30 suspension resolution on July 3, 1975, prompting his immediate motion.

ISSUE

Whether the Supreme Court should lift the order of suspension against Atty. Benito A. Mendoza for his failure to file the appellant’s brief and to comply with court resolutions.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the motion for reconsideration and lifted the suspension order but maintained the imposition of the P200 fine. The Court acknowledged the mitigating circumstances presented by the respondent, including his attempts to locate his client’s father and his alleged non-receipt of the earlier court resolutions. These factors warranted a degree of leniency, leading the Court to conclude that the period of suspension already served from May 30, 1975, was sufficient penalty.
However, the Court did not grant complete exculpation. It found that Atty. Mendoza exhibited carelessness and negligence in managing his professional responsibilities. His failure to maintain a proper calendar to track filing deadlines and his lack of a stable address for receiving court communications constituted a breach of the exacting standards required of a member of the bar. The Court emphasized that if he had doubts about deadlines, he should have proactively sought information from the Clerk of Court. His conduct fell short of his sworn duty. Consequently, while the suspension was lifted, the monetary fine was upheld as a necessary disciplinary measure for his professional lapses. The Court also noted that with the appointment of a counsel de oficio, Atty. Mendoza was relieved of the duty to file the appellant’s brief.