MARIO S. MARIVELES, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. ODILON C. MALLARI, RESPONDENTS.

On January 11, 1989, Mario S. Mariveles of Davao City filed an administrative complaint against
his former counsel, Attorney Odilon C. Mallari, whose legal services he had
engaged in 1984 to handle his defense in Criminal Case No. 6608 of the Regional
Trial Court of Davao City where he was charged with violation of B.P. Blg. 22,
otherwise known as the Bouncing Checks Law.

After an adverse decision was rendered on December 26, 1986,
Mariveles instructed Attorney Mallari to appeal the trial court’s decision to
the Court of Appeals, which the respondent did.

However, in the Court of Appeals, despite numerous extensions of
time, totalling 245 days, which he obtained from the Court, Attorney Mallari
failed to file the appellant’s brief, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal.

Complainant discovered his lawyer’s   desertion only when he was subpoenaed by the trial court to appear before
it for the execution of the decision which had become final.

Through new counsel, complainant filed a Petition for
Reinstatement of Appeal, Cancellation of Entry of Judgment and Admission of
Appellant’s Brief in CA-G.R. CR No. 04482, but it was denied by the appellate
court.

He sought relief in this Court (G.R. No. 85964, “Mario S.
Mariveles vs. Court of Appeals, et al.”) which, on March 13, 1989, granted
his petition, ordered the Court of Appeals to cancel the entry of judgment in
CA-G.R. CR No. 04482, reinstate the appeal, and admit the appellant’s brief
filed by his new counsel. The Court
said:

“It is true that the failure of counsel to file brief for the
appellant which led to the dismissal of the appeal does not necessarily warrant
the reinstatement thereof. However,
where the negligence of counsel is so great that the rights of the accused are
prejudiced and he is prevented from presenting his defense, especially where
the appellant raises issues which place in serious doubt the correctness of the
trial court’s judgment of conviction, the aforesaid rule must not be rigidly
applied to avoid a miscarriage of justice. These teachings of jurisprudence are present in the case at bar.

“On the first aspect, the failure of petitioner’s former
counsel to file the brief, for reasons unknown and without any cause imputable
to petitioner, amounted to deliberate abandonment of his client’s interest and
justifies reinstatement with consequent due consideration of petitioner’s appeal
through a new counsel.” (pp. 106-107, Rollo.)

On February 15, 1989, the administrative complaint was referred
to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and
recommendation.

The IBP’s Committee on Bar Discipline investigated the complaint
and held hearings. On March 3, 1992, it
submitted to this Court a report/resolution finding:

“In sum, what was committed by the respondent is a blatant
violation of our Code of Professional Responsibility.

“xxx                                xxx                                xxx

“’Rule 12.03 – A lawyer shall not, after obtaining extensions
of time to file pleadings, memoranda or briefs, let the period lapse
without submitting the same or offering
an explanation for his failure to do so.

“’Rule 18.03 – A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter
entrusted to him and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him
liable.’

“Suffice it to state that a lawyer has no business practicing
his profession if in the course of that practice, he will eventually wreck and
destroy the future and reputation of his client and thus disgrace the law
profession. The last thing that his
peers in the law profession and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines would do
is to disrobe a member of the profession, for he has worked for the attainment
of his career burning the midnight oil throughout school and passing the
bar. The undersigned, however, could
not find any mitigating cir­cumstances to recommend a lighter penalty. Disbarment is the only recourse to remove a
rotten apple if only to instill and maintain the respect and confidence of all
and sundry to the noble profession.” (pp. 249-250, Rollo.)

The Court concurs with the above observations. The respondent demonstrated not only
appalling indiffer­ence and lack of responsibility to the courts and his client
but also a shameless disregard for his duties as a lawyer. He is unfit for membership in this noble
profession.

WHEREFORE, the Court finds respondent Attorney Odilon C.
Mallari guilty of abandonment and dereliction of duty toward his client and
hereby orders him DIS­BARRED from the legal profession and to immediately cease
and desist from the practice of law. Let the Office of the Court Administrator and the Executive Judges of
the Ninth, Tenth, Eleventh and Twelfth Judicial Regions, be furnished with
copies of this resolution for dissemination to all the courts in those regions.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., Cruz, Feliciano, Padilla, Bidin, Grino-Aquino,
Regalado, Davide Jr., Romero, Nocon, Bellosillo, Melo, and Campos, Jr., JJ., concur.

Gutierrez, Jr., J., on terminal
leave.

Quiason, J., no part.