G.R. No. L-20147; February 28, 1963
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. FRANCISCO AGUILAR, ET AL., defendants, JOSE RAMIREZ, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

This is a resolution from the Supreme Court concerning a disciplinary matter against Atty. Nicolas A. Superable. The Court had issued a prior resolution on January 8, 1963, requiring Atty. Superable to explain why disciplinary action should not be taken against him for his failure to file the appellant’s brief for defendant Jose Ramirez. The period for filing the brief had expired on November 28, 1962.
In response, Atty. Superable filed an unverified explanation on January 28, 1963. He claimed he never received any notice from the Court requiring him to file the brief. He further explained that while he had appeared in the Court of First Instance of Leyte with Atty. Felixberto Avestruz for Ramirez, it was only for the purpose of fixing a bail bond pending appeal. Finally, he stated that he was later informed by the defendant’s brother that the appeal would be discontinued, leading him to believe filing a brief was unnecessary.

ISSUE

Whether Atty. Nicolas A. Superable’s unverified explanation for his failure to file the required appellant’s brief is sufficient to excuse him from potential disciplinary action.

RULING

The Court found Atty. Superable’s explanation insufficient and ordered him to submit a verified one. The legal logic rests on procedural compliance and the attorney’s duty to the Court. First, the Court’s records contradicted his claim of non-receipt of notice. The registry return card showed that the notice for filing the brief, sent to both Attys. Avestruz and Superable at their Tacloban City address, was received on October 29, 1962, by an individual on their behalf, as evidenced by a signature on the return card. This established a prima facie presumption of service.
Second, the explanation itself was procedurally defective for being unverified. The Court requires such submissions to be under oath to ensure accountability and the truthfulness of the factual assertions. His other justifications—that his representation was limited to bail and that he relied on hearsay about discontinuing the appeal—were rendered moot by the defective form and the contrary evidence of service. An attorney has a continuing duty to monitor the status of a case and to comply with court directives, which cannot be abdicated based on unofficial information. Therefore, the Court mandated the filing of a verified explanation within ten days for proper evaluation before deciding on any disciplinary measure.