People v. Macellones
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondent Dominador L. Natividad, as counsel de parte for accused Julio Macellones and Noe Macellones, failed to file their brief as appellants, which was due on April 28, 1972. Procedural History: The Supreme Court issued a resolution on August 17, 1972, imposing a fine of P200.00 on respondent and granting him an additional thirty days to file the brief. Despite this extension, no brief was filed. Consequently, an order of suspension was issued on November 3, 1972. The Petition: Respondent sought relief from the order of suspension and the fine. Subsequently, respondent prevailed upon the accused to withdraw their appeals, which was approved by the Court in resolutions dated December 12, 1972, and December 29, 1972. Respondent sought the remission of the fine and revocation of the suspension.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent counsel should be relieved from the fine and suspension despite the withdrawal of the appeals by his clients. Whether the respondent's conduct constitutes a violation of his professional obligations as a member of the bar.
Ruling
The Supreme Court lifted the suspension of respondent Dominador L. Natividad, effective upon payment of the P200.00 fine. However, he was severely censured for his misconduct, and a copy of the resolution was ordered to be spread upon his record.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of relief from fine and suspension: The Court held that while the withdrawal of the appeals by the accused might mitigate the respondent's conduct, it could not absolve him from his non-compliance with his obligation as a member of the bar. The failure to file the brief was deemed inexcusable. The Court noted that the suspension could be lifted only upon payment of the fine. The respondent was reminded that had he realized his inability to fulfill his duties, he should have asked to withdraw so that the clients could secure competent counsel. The Court also pointed out that had the accused been represented by less negligent counsel, a review of their cases might have reduced their penal liability. The respondent was advised to be appreciative that the penalty imposed was less than what his irresponsibility deserved. On the issue of professional misconduct: The Court found that the respondent's conduct betrayed a failure to exert "entire devotion to the interest of the client, warm zeal in the maintenance and defense of his rights, and the exercise of his utmost learning and ability," as mandated by Canon 15 of the Canons of Legal Ethics. Furthermore, his actions revealed a lack of respect and obedience to the highest Tribunal of the land. The Court emphasized that such flagrant omission rendered precarious his good standing and entailed liability.
Main Doctrine
A counsel de parte who fails to file a brief for the accused within the reglementary period, despite extensions, and whose failure is inexcusable, may be sanctioned with a fine and suspension, even if the accused later withdraws their appeal. While withdrawal may mitigate, it does not absolve the counsel from non-compliance with their professional obligations and duty to the Court.