PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. DIONISIO TAN Y CUI ALIAS DIONING, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

People versus Tan

The Case

People versus Tan is a criminal appeal in which Dionisio Tan, also known as Dioning, was the defendant and appellant, and the People of the Philippines were the plaintiff and appellee. The decision itself, however, is remembered less for the crime charged than for what it says about the duty of counsel and the discipline of lawyers. The Court here turned its attention to the appellant's own lawyer, Attorney Marcelino N. Sayo, who failed to file the appellant's brief within the period granted to him, and the decision is the Court's short, firm ruling on his explanation and his penalty. For a Bar candidate, it is a compact lesson on the consequences of a lawyer's neglect of a client's appeal.

Procedural History

The case was on appeal before the Supreme Court. On the second of September, 1965, upon the motion of Attorney Marcelino N. Sayo, counsel for the appellant, the Court granted him an extension of thirty days from the twenty-ninth of August of the same year within which to file his client's brief, and that extension expired on the twenty-ninth of September, 1965. As of the fourteenth of October, 1965, the attorney had still not filed the appellant's brief. The Court then issued a resolution on that same fourteenth of October requiring him to explain, within ten days, why disciplinary action should not be taken against him. Pursuant to that resolution, he filed on the nineteenth of October, 1965 a verified explanation. The Court resolved the matter in the decision now before us.

Facts

The appellant's counsel asked for and received more time to file the appellant's brief. The Court granted an extension of thirty days counted from the twenty-ninth of August, 1965, which expired on the twenty-ninth of September, 1965. The deadline came and went without the brief being filed.

By the fourteenth of October, 1965, no brief had yet been submitted. The Court thereupon issued a resolution directing the attorney to explain, within ten days, why disciplinary action should not be taken against him for the omission.

In response, the attorney filed a verified explanation on the nineteenth of October, 1965. He offered as his justification or excuse that, for the last six months, he had been sickly and was suffering from hypertension. The Court examined that explanation and found it wanting.

Issues

• Whether or not the attorney's explanation of hypertension, offered to justify his failure to file the appellant's brief within the extended period, is satisfactory.
• Whether or not disciplinary action, in the form of a fine, should be imposed upon the attorney for his failure to file the brief.

Applicable Provisions

The decision text before us does not quote or cite any specific statutory or rules provision; it rests on the Court's power to require counsel to explain a failure to comply with its resolutions and to impose discipline. The Court's own directive in this case reads:

Our resolution of October 14, 1965 required him to explain, within ten (10) days, why disciplinary action should not be taken against him.

That directive frames the whole inquiry, because the attorney's explanation had to satisfy the Court that no disciplinary action was warranted.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the explanation was not satisfactory. It gave three reasons. First, the claim of hypertension was not supported by any medical certificate. Second, hypertension alone, in general, could not have prevented Attorney Sayo from preparing his client's brief. Third, even assuming that he was, to a certain degree, disabled and incapacitated from preparing the brief, he could easily have informed the Court in due time, and so avoided delay in the disposition of the case. The Court put its conclusion plainly:

We do not deem the above explanation to be satisfactory.

On the second issue, having found the explanation insufficient, the Court imposed a fine. It ordered Attorney Marcelino N. Sayo to pay a fine of fifty pesos for his failure to file his client's brief within the period given him for that purpose. The Court also directed the Clerk of Court to submit to the Court the name of the attorney at law who may be appointed as counsel de oficio for the appellant in this case, so that the appeal could proceed with counsel who would actually act.

Doctrine

Three rules may be drawn from this case and written in an answer. First, a lawyer who fails to file a required brief within the period fixed by the Court must give a satisfactory explanation, and a bare claim of illness such as hypertension, unsupported by a medical certificate, is not satisfactory. Second, the Court will not accept an excuse that is inconsistent with the ordinary capacity of a lawyer to act, because hypertension alone, in general, does not prevent the preparation of a brief. Third, and most important for practice, a lawyer who is genuinely prevented from complying with a deadline must inform the Court in due time, so that the disposition of the case is not delayed; silence until after the deadline is itself a ground for discipline. The penalty imposed here, a fine of fifty pesos, shows that the Court enforces its deadlines against counsel directly, and the appointment of counsel de oficio for the appellant shows that the client's appeal is protected even when his chosen lawyer fails him.

Disposition

The Court found the attorney's explanation unsatisfactory, ordered Attorney Marcelino N. Sayo to pay a fine of fifty pesos, and directed the Clerk of Court to submit the name of an attorney who may be appointed as counsel de oficio for the appellant.

Remember This

The one line to memorize is that hypertension alone, unsupported by a medical certificate, does not excuse a lawyer's failure to file a brief, and a lawyer who is truly incapacitated must inform the Court in due time. Examiners use this case in legal ethics and remedial law to test counsel's duty of diligence to the client and the Court, and the consequences of a lawyer's neglect of an appeal.