G.R. No. L-30543, August 31, 1970
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rodrigo Cawili, Defendant-Appellant.

FACTS

Atty. Hospicio O. Zapata, counsel de parte for the accused-appellant Rodrigo Cawili, failed to file the appellant’s brief within the reglementary period, which expired on June 11, 1970. The Court, in a resolution dated August 3, 1970, required Atty. Zapata to explain within ten days why no disciplinary action should be taken against him for this failure. In his explanation submitted on August 22, 1970, Atty. Zapata admitted his remissness but sought to mitigate it by citing the accused’s indigence, which resulted in him not being paid and partly assuming the defense expenses. He cited the wife’s inability to bear printing costs and that he was not called upon to continue spending. He also opined that a review of the record would show the decision was contrary to law and evidence. He tendered an apology and promised no repetition.

ISSUE

Whether Atty. Hospicio O. Zapata should be subjected to disciplinary action for his failure to file the appellant’s brief within the reglementary period.

RULING

Yes, Atty. Zapata is subject to disciplinary action. The Court found his failure to file the brief an offense warranting discipline. The mitigating circumstances he invoked did not exculpate him, as he could have sought permission to file a mimeographed brief or at least informed the Court of his difficulties. His assumption that a mere reading of the record sufficed betrayed irresponsibility and a lack of elementary courtesy to the Court. His conduct was inexcusable, though his explanation and the difficulties he faced invited less than full punishment. Atty. Hospicio O. Zapata is REPRIMANDED for his failure and ADMONISHED to be more careful in fulfilling his obligations to his client and the Court.