THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. GAUDENCIO INGCO, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT, IN RE ALFREDO R. BARRIOS, RESPONDENT.

Respondent Alfredo R. Barrios, a member of the Philippine Bar,
who was appointed counsel de oficio for the accused in this case,
Gaudencio Ingco, sentenced to death on September 28, 1970 for the crime of rape
with homicide, was required in a resolution of this Court on September 9, 1971
to show cause within ten days why disciplinary action should not be taken
against him for having filed fifteen days late a motion for the extension of
time for submit­ting the brief for appellant Ingco.  The explanation came in a mani­festation of
September 16, 1971.  It was therein
stated that respondent “was then busy with the preparation of the brief of
one Benjamin Apelo” pending in the Court of Appeals; that while he had
made studies in preparation for the brief in this case, during such period he
had to appear before court in Manila, Quezon City, Pasay City, Bulacan and
Pampanga; and that likewise he did file, on July 27, 1971, motions for
extension in the aforesaid case of Benjamin Apelo with the Court of Appeals,
which motions were duly granted.  He
would impress on this Court then that he was misled into assuming that he had
also likewise taken the necessary steps to file a motion for extension of time
for the submission of his brief in this case by the receipt of the resolution
from the Court of Appeals granting him such extension.

Clearly, it is a lame excuse that respondent did offer.  By his own confession, he was woefully
negligent.  Considering that the accused
is fighting for his life, the least that could be expected of a counsel de
oficio is awareness of the period within which he was required to file
appellant’s brief.  The mere fact that
according to him his practice was extensive, requiring his appearance in courts
in Manila and environs as well as the provinces of Bulacan and Pampanga, should
not have lessened that degree of care necessary for the fulfillment of his
responsi­bility.  What is worse is that
by sheer inattention, he would confuse the proceedings in a matter pending
before the Court of Appeals with this present case.  Such grave neglect of duty is deserving of
severe condemnation.  It is clearly
unworthy of membership in the Bar which requires dedication and zeal in the defense
of his client’s rights, a duty even more exacting when one is counsel de
oficio.  On such an occasion, the
honor and respect to which the legal profession is entitled demand the
strictest accountability of one called upon to defend an impo­verished
litigant.  He who fails in his obligation
then has mani­fested a diminished capacity to be enrolled in its ranks.

WHEREFORE, respondent Alfredo R. Barrios is severely
reprimanded, this reprimand to be entered in his record.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Makalintal, Zaldivar, Castro,
Teehankee, Barredo, Villamor, and
Makasiar, JJ., concur.