THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. FLORENTINO COPRO, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. ATTORNEY LEOVIGILDO L. CERILLA, RESPONDENT.

People versus Copro

The Case

This is a disciplinary proceeding against Attorney Leovigildo L. Cerilla, counsel for the accused Florentino Copro in a criminal appeal. The Supreme Court, in resolving the appeal, called upon the lawyer to explain why he failed to file the appellant's brief within the extended period granted to him. The case matters because it fixes the standard of a lawyer's duty to the Court: the obligation to file pleadings on time is owed to the judiciary, and neither the client's failure to pay nor the lawyer's own illness will excuse neglect unless the lawyer asks to be relieved of the responsibility.

Procedural History

The accused, Florentino Copro, was convicted at trial and appealed to the Supreme Court. The respondent, Attorney Cerilla, appeared as counsel for the appellant. The original thirty-day period to file the appellant's brief expired on November 25, 1973. The Court granted a first extension, and then, on January 10, 1974, granted a second extension of sixty days from December 25, 1973, upon the lawyer's motion citing a heart ailment and his doctor's advice of complete bed rest. The extended period expired on February 23, 1974, without any brief. On March 13, 1974, the Court issued a resolution requiring the respondent to explain within ten days why he failed to file the brief. He filed a manifestation on March 25, 1974, and the Court resolved the matter in this decision.

Facts

Attorney Cerilla had been retained by Marciano Carable, the father-in-law of the accused. From the very day the notice of appeal was filed, the lawyer told Carable of the need to secure a complete copy of the transcript of stenographic notes and to deliver it at least three weeks before the expiry of the period for filing the brief. Carable failed to do so. The lawyer then suffered a heart ailment, and his doctor advised complete bed rest for at least two months, so he sought extensions of time.

Despite the extensions, Carable still failed to deliver the transcript, and he also failed to deliver the amount needed to defray the cost of printing the brief. On January 28, 1974, the lawyer's secretary sent Carable a registered letter impressing upon him the consequences of his failure. Even after that letter, Carable appeared at the lawyer's office only a few days before the manifestation, still without the transcript and without the printing costs.

In his manifestation, the respondent prayed that the Court take note of his explanation and insisted that the failure to file the brief was due to no fault or negligence on his part. The Court noted, however, that the brief was originally due on November 25, 1973, that it was already July 1974, and that still no brief had been submitted. Even the manifestation itself was filed after the ninety-day extension had been granted.

Issues

• Whether or not Attorney Cerilla may be exculpated from accountability for failing to file the appellant's brief within the extended period, on the ground that his client's family failed to furnish the transcript of stenographic notes and the printing costs.
• Whether or not the respondent's alleged heart ailment excuses his failure to comply with his duty to the Court.
• Whether or not the respondent is liable for disciplinary action for neglect of his duty to the judiciary.

Applicable Provisions

The decision does not quote any statutory provision. It rests on the Court's disciplinary authority over members of the bar and on the duty of counsel to the judiciary. The governing principle is stated in the Court's own words:

Even a neophyte should be aware that his responsibility to the judiciary, especially to this Court, frowns on any delay occasioned by negligence or inattention to duty.

This principle bears directly on the case because it makes the lawyer's duty to the Court independent of his client's cooperation or ability to pay.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the respondent cannot be exculpated. The cause of his failure was predicated solely on the failure of the client's family, possibly indigent, to secure a copy of the stenographic notes. The Court stressed that if the client could not comply with his instruction, and if his health would not permit him to attend to his duties, he ought to have asked the Court to be relieved from such responsibility. He failed to do so.

On the second issue, the Court held that the heart ailment did not excuse him. Had his health been the reason, it would be unreasonable to hold him liable. But his manifestation showed that his failure was due not to fear of risk to his health but to the absence of the transcript.

On the third issue, the Court held that his accountability was clear. It recalled its ruling in the Visayan Stevedore Transportation case, quoting:

What concerns this Court was his neglecting to comply with a duty owed it.

It also quoted People versus Rosqueta:

Respondent should be aware that even in those cases where counsel de parte is unable to secure from appellants or from their near relatives the amount necessary to pursue the appeal, that does not necessarily conclude his connection with the case.

The Court added that it has been a commendable practice of some members of the bar, under such circumstances, to be designated as counsel de oficio, for that way the interest of justice is best served. What earned reproof was the respondent's irresponsibility, for a lawyer cannot be too casual and unconcerned about the filing of pleadings.

Doctrine

A lawyer's duty to file pleadings on time is owed to the Court, not merely to the client. The inability of the client or his family to furnish the transcript of stenographic notes or to pay printing costs does not excuse the lawyer's neglect. If the client cannot cooperate, or if the lawyer's health prevents him from acting, the lawyer must ask the Court to be relieved from the responsibility or to be allowed to withdraw so that counsel de oficio may be appointed. A lawyer cannot be too casual and unconcerned about the filing of pleadings, and any delay occasioned by negligence or inattention to duty merits disciplinary action.

Disposition

Attorney Leovigildo L. Cerilla was reprimanded for his failure to file the brief on time and to explain it satisfactorily, and was given thirty days to file the appellant's brief or, in the alternative, to request permission to retire from the case in view of his heart condition so that counsel de oficio could be appointed for the accused.

Remember This

The line worth memorizing is that a lawyer's responsibility to the judiciary frowns on any delay occasioned by negligence or inattention to duty. Examiners use this case on the duty of counsel to the Court, on the proper remedy of withdrawal or relief when a client fails to cooperate, and on the disciplinary consequences of filing briefs late.