OCA CIRCULAR NO. 67-2003, May 29, 2003

For die information and guidance of all concerned, quoted hereunder
is die decision of the Court’s Third Division in Administrative Case No.
5024 entitled “Arsenia T. Bergonia vs. Alty. Arsenio A. Merrera,” dared
February 20, 2003; to wit:

“x x x

‘Rule 12.03, Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, requires all the members of the bar to observe the following:

‘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.’

Expressly stated is the requirement to show good and sufficient
cause for requests of extension of time to file appellate briefs,
Section 12 of Rule 44 of the Rules of Court provides that an extension
of time for the filing of a brief Shall not be allowed, except when
there is good and sufficient cause, and only when the motion is filed
before the expiration of the extension sought. .

x x x

a lawyer who requests an extension must do so in good faith and
with a genuine intent to file the required pleading 52i2 eacfided
period. In granting the request, the court aas aa ih£ presumption that
the applicant has a justifiable jeasoa for Mme to comply with the period
allowed. Without fMs ismlied trust the motion for extension will be
deemed-to be a mere rose to delay or thwart, the appealed decision. The
motion thus be “regarded as a means of preventing the judgment from
attaining .finality and execution and of enabling ife movam to trifle
with procedure and mock the administration of justice.

In Lhis case, respondent mice moved for an extension of time to
file the required appellant’s brief. In his first Motion, he alleged
ihsi he had a hectic daily scheduled of hearings and other pressures
from work. In his next. Motion, he claimed lie had acute arthritis and
asthmatic attacks. The granting of his two Motions implied thai he had
been given ample time either to finish researching his case or to
withdraw Ms appeal. Yet, he still failed to file die required brief.- In
its June 25V 1998 Resolution, the CA noted that the appellee’s Motion
to Dismiss the appeal was filed only after forty (40) days from the
expiration of the last extension.

Respondent claims that he never planted false hopes in the mtad of
complainant. Upon receiving the Decision iri Civil Case No. U-6061, he
purportedly advised her that her chances of winning m the appellate
court was slim, because the ownership of the disputed land had already
been adjudicated to the-other party in Civil Case No. U-4601. He avers
that he tried to persuade her to accept her defeat “like a good
soldier.”

We are not persuaded. If, indeed, respondent failed to convince
complainant to drop her appeal, he should have just withdrawn his
appearance. Based on his arguments in “his Opposition to the Motion for
Execution and Demolition, however, we do not believe that he even tried
to convince her to withdraw the appeal. We are inclined to beHeve that
this excuse was merely an afterthought to justify his negligence.

Moreover, respondent claims that after filing the Motions” for
Extension, he surmised that the appeal would be useless, because he
could not show sufficient cause to reverse the Decision.

This justification is even more inexcusable. Respondent should have
checked first if there was a good ground to support the appeal. If
there was none, he should have been forthright in his evaluation of the
case.

Lawyers should My familiarize themselves with the causes of their
clients before advising the latter on the soundness of litigating. If
they find that the intended suite is devoid of merit or that the pending
action is defenseless,^[22] they should promptly inform and dissuade their clients accordingly.”

Assuming that respondent indeed tried to persuade complainant to
abandon the appeal, he should have manifested to the CA that he had
decided not to file the appellant’s brief anymore, instead of just
letting the period lapse. His contention that he could not find the
appropriate jurisprudence to support her case is too flimsy to be
credible. A competent and ethical lawyer would have at least tried to
persuade the C A with reason and logic.

Respondent alleges that complainant knew of the dismissal of the
appeal. That she had referred the Motion for Execution and Demolition to
him” for comment allegedly showed that she had already given up her
desire to pursue her appeal. He pointed out that if she had indeed
blamed Ms inexcusable negligence for its dismissal, then she would not
have referred that Motion to him.

x x x’

Candor in all their dealings is the very essence of a practitioner’s honorable membership in the legal profession.^[23]
Lawyers are required to act with the highest standard of truthfulness,
fair play and nobility in the conduct of litigation and iti their
relations with their clients, the opposing parties, the other counsels’
and the courts, They are bound for their oath to speak the truth and to
conduct themselves according to the best of their knowledge and
discretion, and with fidelity to the courts and their clients. Canon
18.03 of the Code requires that ‘a lawyer shall not neglect a legal
matter entrusted” to him and his negligence in connection therewith
renders him liable.’

WHEREFORE, Atty. Arsenio A. Marrera is hereby found guilty of
violating Cannons 12 and 18 of the Cannon’s of Professional
Responsibility and SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of
six (6) months from receipt of this Decision. This Decision is
immediately executory.

May 29, 2003

	PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
	Court Administrator

^[23] TheCode of
Professional Responsibilityrequires in Canon 10 thiat” a lawyer owes
candor, fainess and good faith to the court”; Canon 8,” “a lawyer shall
conduct himself with courtesy, fairness and candor towards his
professional colleagues x xx”, and Canon 15, “a lawyer shall observe
candor, fairness and loyalty in all his dealings and transactions with
his client.”