IN THE MATTER OF ATTORNEY LOPE E. ADRIANO, Member of the Philippine Bar. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. REMIGIO ESTEBIA, accused-appellant.
FACTS
Attorney Lope E. Adriano was appointed by the Supreme Court as counsel de oficio for Remigio Estebia, who was convicted of rape and sentenced to death. The notice of appointment, received by Adriano on December 20, 1966, required him to file the appellant’s brief within thirty days. Adriano filed five successive motions for extension of time (totaling 90 days), the last of which expired on April 26, 1967, but he ultimately failed to file the brief. In these motions, he made representations that the brief was more than half-way through, almost through, or needed final drafting. On September 25, 1967, the Court ordered him to show cause why disciplinary action should not be taken for this failure; he did not respond. On October 3, 1968, the Court imposed a fine of P500 and warned of more drastic action for continued non-compliance, which he also ignored. On December 5, 1968, the Court ordered him to show cause why he should not be suspended for gross misconduct; this was personally served on December 18, 1968, and he again ignored it. No brief was ever filed.
ISSUE
Whether Attorney Lope E. Adriano should be disciplined for his failure to file the required appellant’s brief as counsel de oficio and for his disobedience to the lawful orders of the Supreme Court.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court suspended Attorney Lope E. Adriano from the practice of law for one year. The Court held that as counsel de oficio, Adriano had a high duty to exercise his best efforts and provide effective assistance to the indigent accused, a duty equal to that of retained counsel. His failure to file the brief, despite multiple extensions and representations of near-completion, constituted a violation of his oath and a breach of this duty. Furthermore, his willful disregard of three successive Court orders (to show cause, to pay a fine, and to show cause again) demonstrated disrespect, contumacy, and a violation of his duty to maintain respect for the courts. His conduct was analogous to previous cases where suspension was imposed for similar disobedience and neglect of duty.
