Caoile v. Macaraeg
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Francisco Caoile and four others engaged the services of respondent Atty. Marcelino Macaraeg to represent them in Civil Case No. 11119, an action for recovery of ownership before the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Lingayen, Pangasinan. After an adverse judgment was rendered by the CFI, Francisco and his co-defendants decided to appeal the case to the Court of Appeals (CA). Atty. Macaraeg filed a notice of appeal and subsequently moved for extensions of time to file the appellants' brief. Despite assurances that the brief was nearing completion and required only printing, the extended period expired without the brief being filed. Consequently, the CA dismissed the appeal upon motion by the opposing party. This dismissal became final and executory on December 13, 1963. Francisco and his co-defendants only became aware of the dismissal in 1965 when they were served with the CFI's writ of execution and notice of sale of their property. Upon inquiry, Francisco confirmed the dismissal and was informed by Atty. Macaraeg that the loss of the case was due to their failure to pay his fees in full. Procedural History: Francisco Caoile filed a complaint for disbarment against Atty. Marcelino Macaraeg on August 16, 1966, alleging neglect and dereliction of duty that led to the dismissal of his appeal. The Supreme Court referred the complaint to the Solicitor General for investigation on September 22, 1966. The Solicitor General conducted hearings from March to November 1967 and required the parties to submit memoranda. In November 1972, during a subsequent summons, a notation indicated that Atty. Macaraeg had passed away. The case was then transferred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). The IBP, through various orders from 1990 to 2011, attempted to ascertain the parties' continued interest and address supervening events, including the death of Atty. Macaraeg, but received no response. In 2011, Commissioner Oliver A. Cachapero issued a Report and Recommendation, finding Atty. Macaraeg to have violated Rule 12.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and recommending a two-year suspension. The IBP Board of Governors adopted these findings in 2013 but reduced the penalty to a one-year suspension. The Petition: This administrative complaint, initiated by Francisco Caoile, sought the disbarment of Atty. Marcelino Macaraeg for alleged neglect and dereliction of duty. The core of the complaint centers on Atty. Macaraeg's failure to file the appellants' brief in the Court of Appeals, despite multiple extensions, which resulted in the dismissal of his clients' appeal. The complainant argued that this failure constituted a violation of the lawyer's professional responsibilities. Atty. Macaraeg, in defense, attributed the non-filing to the clients' failure to provide the necessary funds for the brief and appeal expenses, and also raised issues regarding the payment of his professional fees. The case, however, was ultimately dismissed by the Supreme Court due to the supervening circumstance of Atty. Macaraeg's death during the pendency of the proceedings, coupled with the significant passage of time and the apparent loss of interest from the complainant.
Issue(s)
Whether Atty. Macaraeg was guilty of neglect and dereliction of duty for failing to file the appellant's brief. Whether the administrative case should be dismissed due to supervening circumstances.
Ruling
The Court dismissed the Complaint for Disbarment against Atty. Marcelino Macaraeg.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of neglect and dereliction of duty: The Court affirmed the findings of the IBP Commissioner and the Board of Governors that Atty. Macaraeg neglected the cause of his clients. He thrice moved for extensions of time to file the appellant's brief but failed to submit it even after the last extension. This failure directly resulted in the dismissal of his clients' appeal. A motion for extension carries the presumption that the pleading will be filed within the extended period, and failure to do so without reasonable excuse violates the Code of Professional Responsibility. While Atty. Macaraeg blamed his clients for non-payment, he should have shown a more mindful attitude by advancing the payment, especially since the clients were making partial payments and had even entered into a pacto de retro sale to settle his fees. Alternatively, he could have withdrawn his services for a good cause, such as the client's failure to comply with the retainer agreement, as allowed by Rule 22.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Thus, his actuation warranted the imposition of a penalty. On the issue of dismissal due to supervening circumstances: Despite the established neglect, the Court found that supervening circumstances necessitated the dismissal of the administrative case. Records indicated that Atty. Macaraeg was already deceased at the time the case was being investigated by the Solicitor General in 1972, as evidenced by a handwritten notation on the subpoena return. Given his admission to the Bar in 1933 and his age in 1967, he would have been significantly older by the time of the resolution. The prolonged pendency of the case and the lack of further action from the complainant, despite notices from the IBP, supported the assumption that the complainant had lost interest. Following the precedent in Apiag v. Cantero, where an administrative case was dismissed due to the respondent's death during its pendency, the Court dismissed the present case without imposing any sanction.
Main Doctrine
While a lawyer's failure to file an appellant's brief despite extensions, leading to the dismissal of the appeal, constitutes neglect and violates Rule 12.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, an administrative case for disbarment may be dismissed due to supervening circumstances such as the death of the respondent lawyer during the pendency of the case.