GR L 33416; (June, 1972) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-33416 June 29, 1972
The People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Hilarion Casimiro, et al., defendants, Benjamin Icalla, Rodolfo Soriano and Benjamin Cinco, defendants-appellants, Manuel N. Sanglay, respondent.
FACTS
Respondent Atty. Manuel N. Sanglay, counsel of record for appellants Benjamin Icalla, Rodolfo Soriano, and Benjamin Cinco, failed to file the appellants’ brief within the reglementary period, which expired on December 23, 1971. The Court required him to explain this failure. In his manifestation, Sanglay explained that after receiving the notice to file the brief, he contacted the appellants’ parents. The father of appellant Cinco initially desired not to continue the appeal but was later persuaded by Pablo Icalla, father of appellant Benjamin Icalla.
Sanglay claimed that Pablo Icalla informed him he had already engaged another lawyer to prepare the brief and had taken the case transcripts. Sanglay was asked not to withdraw his appearance as a token of his prior work. Regarding appellant Soriano, Sanglay stated he could not file a brief because Soriano had escaped from jail. He argued his failure was attributable to the appellants and their parents, who had disauthorized him by hiring another lawyer.
ISSUE
Whether Atty. Manuel N. Sanglay should be held administratively liable for his failure to file the appellants’ brief on time.
RULING
Yes, Atty. Sanglay is administratively liable. The Court found that while his failure may not have been willful and his good faith was not impugned, his explanation did not absolve him. As counsel of record with no other appearance entered, he bore the primary duty to the Court to ensure the brief was filed or to formally inform the Court of any developments affecting his capacity to comply.
Sanglay was aware the reglementary period was running and that the Court expected him to act. The least expected of him was to promptly inform the Court of the alleged disauthorization by the clients and to seek permission to withdraw as counsel. He failed to take this step until after the Court required him to explain his omission, which was too late and did not cure his initial negligence. His inaction constituted a breach of his duty as an officer of the court. Consequently, he was reprimanded, and a copy of the resolution was ordered entered in his record. His subsequent prayer to withdraw as counsel for the remaining appellants was granted.