THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. RODRIGO CAWILI, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. RE:  DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST HOSPICIO O. ZAPATA, MEMBER OF THE PHILIPPINE BAR.

The question before us is whether or not Hospicio
O. Zapata, a member of the Philippine Bar, is to be subjected to disciplinary
action.  He was, under our resolution of August 3, 1970,^[1]
given a period of ten days after receipt thereof to explain why no such action
should be taken against him in view of his failure to submit the brief as
counsel de parte within the reglementary period. 
He filed an explanation in a memorandum submitted to us on August 22,
1970, admitting that he was remiss in his obligation to file said brief, but
seeking to minimize such failure on his part with the allegation that the
accused, Rodrigo Cawili, was in a state of indigence
resulting not only in his not being paid but also in his partly assuming the
expenses entailed in such defense.  After
invoking such circumstances as the
expenses incident on the printing of the brief being beyond the power of the
wife of the accused to bear and that he was not called upon to continue
spending on behalf of such client, he would have us overlook his failure to
file the brief as in his opinion “the mere review of the record of the
case will readily show that the decision is contrary to law and the evidence
adduced during the trial, * *.”^[2]
He did tender his apology, coupled with a promise that an incident of such
character will not be repeated in the future.

It cannot be denied that the failure of counsel to submit the
brief within the reglementary period is an offense that entails
disciplinary action.  The recital of the
circumstances on which counsel would seek to reduce its gravity do not call for
exculpation.  He could have sought the
permission to file a mimeographed brief, or, at the very least, he could have
informed us of the difficulties attendant on defending his client.  For him to blithely assume that a mere reading of the record would
suffice to discharge an obligation not only to his client but to this Court is
to betray a degree of irresponsibility. 
It is not in keeping, even, with the minimal standards expected of
membership in the bar to be so lacking in elementary courtesy that this Court
was not even informed of his inability to comply with what was incumbent on
him.  His conduct was therefore
inexcusable, although the explanation he tendered and the difficulties under
which he worked would, to a certain degree, invite less than full punishment.

WHEREFORE, respondent Hospicio
O. Zapata is hereby reprimanded for his failure to submit his brief within the reglementary period, and admonished to be much more careful
in the fulfillment of his obligations to his client and to this honorable
Tribunal.

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

Teehankee, J., on official leave.

^[1]
The resolution reads as follows:  “In
L-30543, People vs. Cawili, this Court, after
considering that the accused, Rodrigo Cawili,
requested to have counsel to defend him, his counsel de parte, Atty. Hospicio
Zapata, having failed to file his brief within the period which expired on June
11, 1970, and after taking note of the explanation of such failure on the part
of such counsel de parte which
is far from satisfactory, resolved to grant the request of the accused to have
a counsel de oficio appointed for him
and to require Atty. Hospicio Zapata to explain
within a period of ten days after receipt of this resolution why no
disciplinary action should be taken against him for his failing to submit the
brief for the accused within the reglementary period.”

^[2]
Explanation, paragraph 8.