EN BANC
[G.R. No. L-22697. November 2, 1965.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DONION TAN Y CUI @ DIONING, Defendant-Appellant.
SYLLABUS
1. ATTORNEYS; DISCIPLINE; DISCIPLINARY ACTION MAY BE TAKEN: IMPOSITION OF FINE ON COUNSEL FOR FAILURE TO FILE CLIENT’S BRIEF. — Counsel’s explanation that he failed to file his client’s brief because for the last six months he had been sickly suffering from hypertension is not satisfactory; firstly, because it is not supported by a medical certificate; secondly, because hypertension alone, in general, could not have prevented him from preparing his client’s brief; and thirdly, because, even assuming that he was, to a certain degree disabled and incapacitated to prepare said brief he could have informed the court in due time of his incapacity. For such failure a fine of P50.00 is imposed.
R E S O L U T I O N
DIZON, J.:
On September 2, 1965, upon motion filed by Atty. Marcelino N. Sayo, counsel for appellant, he was granted an extension of thirty (30) days from August 29, of the same year within which to file his client’s brief — which extension expired on September 29, 1965. Up to October 14, 1965 however, said attorney had not filed appellant’s brief. As a result, our resolution of October 14, 1965 required him to explain, within ten (10) days, why disciplinary action should not be taken against him. Pursuant to said resolution, he filed on October 19, 1965 a verified explanation alleging as justification or excuse for his failure to file his client’s brief, the claim that, for the last six months, he had been sickly "suffering from hypertension."cralaw virtua1aw library
We do not deem the above explanation to be satisfactory, firstly, because it is not supported by any medical certificate; secondly, because hypertension alone, in general, could not have prevented Atty. Sayo from preparing his client’s brief; and thirdly, because, even assuming that he was, to a certain degree, disabled and incapacitated to prepare said brief, he could have easily so informed the Court in due time, thus avoiding delay in the disposition of this case.
WHEREFORE, Atty. Marcelino N. Sayo is hereby ordered to pay a fine of P50.00 for his failure to file his client’s brief within the period given him for that purpose.
The Clerk of Court is hereby directed to submit to this Court the name of the attorney-at-law who may be appointed as counsel de oficio for the appellant in this case.
Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., and Zaldivar, JJ., concur.
Reyes, J.B.L., and Barrera, JJ., are on official leave.
We do not deem the above explanation to be satisfactory, firstly, because it is not supported by any medical certificate; secondly, because hypertension alone, in general, could not have prevented Atty. Sayo from preparing his client’s brief; and thirdly, because, even assuming that he was, to a certain degree, disabled and incapacitated to prepare said brief, he could have easily so informed the Court in due time, thus avoiding delay in the disposition of this case.
WHEREFORE, Atty. Marcelino N. Sayo is hereby ordered to pay a fine of P50.00 for his failure to file his client’s brief within the period given him for that purpose.
The Clerk of Court is hereby directed to submit to this Court the name of the attorney-at-law who may be appointed as counsel de oficio for the appellant in this case.
Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., and Zaldivar, JJ., concur.
Reyes, J.B.L., and Barrera, JJ., are on official leave.
