OCA CIRCULARS NO. 54-2002, September 24, 2002

For the information and guidance of all concerned,
quoted hereunder is the decision of the Second Division of the Supreme
Court in Administrative Case No. 5558 entitled “Sps Lolita and Romy
Galen et al., vs. Atty. Antonio B. Pangilinan” dated 7 March 2002, to
wit:

Respondent was clearly negligent in the performance
of his duties as complaints’ counsel. He admits that he failed to file
the appellee’s brief. He admits that he failed to do so because he was
confident that the trial court’s decision would be affirmed is flimsy.
It shows the cavalier attitude which respondent took forward his
client’s cause. While the failure to file the appellee’s brief in a case
in not a ground for an adverse ruling against the appellee, unlike the
failure to file the appellant’s brief which may result in the dismissal
of an appeal, nonetheless, the importance of filing an appellee’s brief
cannot be gainsaid. As the Court has pointed out, ‘Upon appeal, the
appellate court, not being in the position to hear firsthand the
testimony of parties, can only place great reliance on the briefs and
memoranda of the parties. The failure to submit these pleadings could
very well be fatal to the cause.’^[4]
For this reason, this Could held that ‘[r]espondent’s failure to submit
the brief to the appellate court within reglamentary period entails
disciplinary action. Not only it is dereliction of duty to his client
but also to the court as well.’^[5]

xxx

A lawyer is expected to be familiar with these
rudiments of law and procedure and anyone who acquires his service is
entitled to not just competent service but also whole-hearted devotion
to his client’s cause.^[7] It
is duty of a lawyer to serve his client with competence and diligence and
he should exert his best efforts to protect within the bounds of law
the interest and his client.^[8]
A lawyer should never neglect a legal matter entrusted to him,
otherwise his negligence in fulfilling his duty will render him liable
for disciplinary action.^[9]
For failing to render competent service to complainants, respondent
should refund to them the amount of P10,000.00 which he received from
them for litigation expenses.

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, respondent
Atty. Antonio B. Paguirigan, is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for
six (6) months effective upon finality hereof and ORDERED to refund to
complaints the amount of P10,000.00 with WARNING that a repetition of
the same negligent act charged in this complaint will be dealt with even
more same negligent act charged in this complaint will be dealt with
even more severely.”

Copy of the decision was received by Atty. Paguirigan on 26 March 2002 as per Registry Return Receipt No. 27098.

24 September 2002

	PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
	Court Administrator

^[5]Id.

^[6]Tan v. Lapak, G. R. No. 93707, Jan. 23, 2001 citing In Re: Santiago F. Marcos, 156 SCRA 844, 847 (1987) (citations omitted)

^[7]In re: Vicente Y. Bayani, 337 SCRA 451(2000)

^[8] In Re: Atty. David Briones, Adm. Case No. 5486, Aug. 15, 2001.

^[9]CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY, Rule 18.03