BASILIO C. GUTIERREZ, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. LEONARDO N. ZULUETA, RESPONDENT.

This case pertains to
disciplinary proceedings initiated by the herein complainant Basilio C. Gutierrez against the herein respondent Atty.
Leonardo N. Zulueta.

On October
13, 1980, the
complainant filed with this Court a sworn letter-complaint dated October
11, 1980 seeking the
disbarment of the respondent lawyer on the grounds of dishonesty and conduct
unbecoming of a member of the legal profession.

The complainant alleges
that the respondent lawyer was his counsel in two cases, namely, a workmen’s
compensation case and a civil case filed with the then Court of First Instance
of Zamboanga Del Sur.  The complaint concerns the latter case.

The complainant filed the said civil case against his former employer, the Singer Sewing Machine Company.  The trial court ruled in his favor.  On appeal to the Court of Appeals, the said
appellate court reversed the decision of the trial court and ruled in favor of
the company.  It is categorically stated
in the said decision that the complainant did not file a brief.  Thus, he maintains that the case was resolved
against him primarily because his lawyer, the herein respondent, did not file
the required brief with the appellate
court and such omission is attributable to the dishonesty of the
respondent lawyer.

In support of his contention, the complainant alleges that
sometime in August 1976, the
respondent lawyer, who was then in Manila, wired him to send the amount of
P400.00 to cover the expenses in
relation to the preparation and printing of the appellee’s
brief, and upon receipt of the message, he sent the said amount to the
respondent lawyer through the Philippine National Bank.  He also alleges that he sent a telegram to
the respondent lawyer for the purpose of informing the latter that the
P400.00 can be obtained at the Sampaloc, Manila branch office of the same bank.

It appears that sometime thereafter, the respondent lawyer
assured the complainant that the brief had already been filed in court and that
a copy thereof will be made available
to the latter in due time.

It also appears that
immediately after the complainant received a copy of the decision of the Court
of Appeals, he reported the matter to the provincial governor inasmuch as the
respondent lawyer is the provincial legal counsel.  An investigation ensued but the same failed
to settle the problem.

As stated earlier, the
complainant eventually brought the matter to the attention of this
Court.  On April 20, 1981, the Court
resolved to refer the matter to the Office of the Solicitor General for
investigation, report and recommendation.

In the investigation that
ensued, the respondent lawyer testified that he received the amount of P400.00
from the complainant for the purpose of preparing the said brief and that he gave the said amount to his
secretary to cover the expenses to be incurred in such preparation.  He also testified that he had to leave for Pagadian City
at that time and that he instructed his secretary to attend to the filing of
the brief.  He likewise stated that
sometime thereafter, his secretary assured him that the brief had been filed
already.  He also said that he could not
furnish the complainant with a
copy of the brief inasmuch as his secretary, for undisclosed reasons, left the
office, taking with her his records and his typewriter.  The respondent lawyer admits that he received the additional
amount of P100.00 from the complainant for the purpose of securing a copy of
the brief for the latter.^[1]

In due time, the Office
of the Solicitor General filed its report recommending therein that the respondent lawyer be found
guilty of not having exercised the due diligence required of a member of the
legal profession in connection with his duties to his clients and accordingly
impose upon him the penalty of suspension from the practice of law for a period of one year.^[2]

The record of the case
undoubtedly discloses that the respondent lawyer failed to exercise due
diligence in protecting and attending to the interest of his client, the herein
complainant.  The failure of the
respondent lawyer to undertake the necessary measures to submit the required
brief certainly caused material prejudice to the complainant inasmuch as the
appellate court reversed the decision of the trial court which was in favor of
the latter.

The explanation given by
the respondent lawyer to the effect that the failure is attributable to the
negligence of his secretary is devoid of merit. 
A responsible lawyer is expected to supervise the work in his office
with respect to all the pleadings to be filed in court and he should not
delegate this responsibility, lock, stock and barrel, to his office
secretary.  If it were otherwise, irresponsible
members of the legal profession can avoid appropriate disciplinary action by
simply disavowing liability and attributing the problem to the fault or negligence of the office secretary.  Such situation will not be countenanced by
this Court.

In sum, therefore, this
Court is of the well-considered opinion that the respondent lawyer failed to
live up to the duties and responsibilities of a member of the legal
profession.  His suspension from the
practice of law is in order.

WHEREFORE, Atty. Leonardo N. Zulueta
is hereby suspended from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year effective from the date of his receipt
of this resolution.  He is advised to
henceforth exercise greater care and diligence in the performance of his duties
towards his clients.  This decision is
immediately executory and no motion for extension of
time to file a motion for reconsideration will be entertained.  Let copies of this resolution be attached to
his personal record and circulated among the different courts.

SO ORDERED.

Fernan, C.J., Narvasa,
Melencio-Herrera, Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz, Paras, Feliciano, Gancayco,
Padilla, Bidin, Sarmiento,
Cortes, Griño-Aquino, Medialdea, and Regalado, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Pages 4 and 5, Report.

^[2]
Page 7, Report.