442697845 Legal Ethics Digest People of the Philippines Vs Remigio Estebia GR L 26868 27 Feb 1969 docx PDF

Preview

Summary

Canon 4In the Matter of Attorney Lope E. Adriano, Member of the Philippine Bar.LegalEthicsDigest - People of the Philippines Vs Remigio Estebia, GR L-26868, (27 Feb. 1969)Facts: Remigio Estebia was convicted of rape by the Court of First Instance of Samar and was sentenced to suffer the capital puni...

Description

Canon 4 In the Matter of Attorney Lope E. Adriano, Member of the Philippine Bar. LegalEthicsDigest - People of the Philippines Vs Remigio Estebia, GR L-26868, (27 Feb. 1969) Facts: Remigio Estebia was convicted of rape by the Court of First Instance of Samar and was sentenced to suffer the capital punishment. On December, Lope Adriano was appointed as Estebia’s counsel de oficio when his case came up before the Supreme Court on review. Adriano was required to prepare and file his brief within 30 days from notice. On January 19,1967, Adriano sought a 30-day extention to file appellant’s brief in mimeograph form. On February 18, Adriano again moved for a 20-day extension. A third extension was filed on March 8 for 15 days. On March 27 Adriano filed for another 15-day extension and on April 11 he moved for a “last” extension of ten days. However, on April 21 he sought a special extension of five days. All of these motions for extension were granted by the Court and the brief was due on April 26, 1967. However, no brief was filed. For failing to comply, the Supreme Court resolved to impose upon Adriano a fine of P500 with a warning that a more drastic disciplinary action will be taken against him upon further non-compliance. On December 5, 1968, Adriano was ordered to show cause why he should not be suspended from the practice of law for gross misconduct and violation of his oath of office as attorney. A resolution was personally served upon him on December 18, 1968 however Adriano ignored the said resolution. Issue: Whether or not the conduct of Atty Lope E. Adriano as member of the bar deserve disciplinary action. Held: Yes, by specific authority, this Court may assign an attorney to render professional aid to a destitute appellant in a criminal case who is unable to employ an attorney. Correspondingly, a duty is imposed upon the lawyer so assigned "to render the required service." A lawyer so appointed "as counsel for an indigent prisoner", our Canons of Professional Ethics demand, "should always exert his best efforts" in the indigent's behalf. No excuse at all has been offered for non-presentation of appellant's brief. And yet, between December 20, 1966, when he received notice of his appointment, and December 5, 1968, when the last show cause order was issued by this Court, more than sufficient time was afforded counsel to prepare and file his brief de oficio. In the face of the fact that no brief has ever been filed, counsel's statements in his motions for extension have gone down to the level of empty and meaningless words; at best, have dubious claim to veracity.

Page 1 of 2

Adriano’s pattern of conduct reveals a propensity to benumb appreciation of his obligation as counsel de oficio and of the courtesy and respect that should be accorded this Court. For the reasons given Attorney Lope E. Adriano was suspended from the practice of law throughout the Philippines for a period of one (1) year.

Page 2 of 2...