Achacoso v. CA

FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. L-35867. June 28, 1973.]
FRANCISCO A. ACHACOSO, in his own behalf and in behalf of

Capital Insurance & Surety Co., Inc. , petitioners, vs. THE HON. COURT
OF APPEALS, COTRAM, S.A., CAPITAL LIFE ASSURANCE CORP., and
JOAQUIN G. GARRIDO , respondents.
Rodrigo M . Nera for petitioner.

Norberto J . Quisumbing & R. P. Mosqueda for private respondents.
RESOLUTION
TEEHANKEE , J : p
The Court censures the practice of counsels who secure repeated extensions of
time to le their pleadings and thereafter simply let the period lapse without submitting
the pleading or even an explanation or manifestation of their failure to do so. The Court
herein reprimands petitioner's counsel for such misconduct with the warning that a
repetition thereof will be dealt with more severely.
Upon the ling on December 15, 1972 of the petition at bar for review of the
Court of Appeals' decision dismissing petitioner's petition for mandamus led with
said court to compel the Manila court of rst instance to allow petitioner's proposed
appeal from its adverse judgment dismissing plaintiff's complaint, the Court per its
resolution of December 2, 1972 required respondents to comment thereon.
Respondents led on February 8, 1973 an extensive eighteen page comment, and
petitioner's counsel, Rodrigo M. Nera, led on February 12, 1973 a motion for leave to
le reply within 15 days from notice, alleging that there was need for such reply "in
order that this Honorable Court may be fully and completely informed of the nature of
the controversy which gave rise to the instant petition." The Court granted such leave
per its resolution of February 23, 1973, and notice of such leave was served on counsel
on February 27, 1973.
On the last day for ling of the reply, viz, March 14, 1973, counsel asked for an
additional 15 days averring that "due to the pressure of urgent professional work and
daily trial engagements of the undersigned counsel during the original period granted,
he has not had su cient material time to complete the preparation of petitioner's
reply." The Court granted the requested extension per its resolution of March 20, 1973.
On the last day of the extended period for ling of the reply, viz, March 29, 1973,
counsel again asked for still another 15-day extension, stating that "due to the pressure
of urgent professional work and daily trial engagements of the undersigned counsel, he
has not had su cient material time to complete the preparation of petitioner's reply.
The undersigned counsel humbly apologizes that in view of his crowded schedule, he
has been constrained to ask for this extension, but respectfully assures the Honorable
Court that this will be the last one requested." As per its resolution of April 6, 1973, the
Court granted counsel's motion for such third and last extension.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
The period for the ling of petitioner's reply lapsed on April 13, 1973 without
counsel having filed any reply or manifestation explaining his failure to do so.
Accordingly, the Court in its resolution of May 24, 1973 denying the petition for
review for lack of merit, further required petitioner's counsel to show cause why
disciplinary action should not be taken against him for failure to le the reply after
having obtained such leave and three extensions of time within which to do so.
Counsel led in due course his veri ed Explanation dated June 7, 1973, stating
that he was retained in the case "on a piece-work basis on the verbal understanding that
all expenses for the preparation of pleadings and the cost of services of a
stenographer-typist shall be furnished in advance by petitioner upon being noti ed
thereof;" that when he asked for a third extension on March 29, 1973, he so informed
petitioner and requested him to "remit the expenses for the preparation of the reply as
per agreement" and that he tried to contact petitioner before the expiration of the
extended period but failed to do so as petitioner "was then most of the time out of his
office."
Counsel relates that it was only on May 30, 1973 when he received notice of the
Court's resolution of May 24, 1973 denying the petition and requiring his explanation —
long after the expiration on April 13, 1973 of the extended period for the ling of the
reply — that he wrote petitioner and in turn asked petitioner to explain the latter's failure
to comply with his request for a remittance of P500.00 to cover the necessary
expenses, and that petitioner had replied that counsel's letter had been misplaced by a
clerk, and hence, petitioner had "failed to act on the same."
Counsel pleads that "this counsel has not the least intention of delaying the
administration of justice and much less tri e with the resolutions and orders of this
Honorable Court. The inability of this counsel to submit the reply within the third
extension granted by this Honorable Court was due to supervening circumstances
which could not be attributed to this counsel;" and that "if this poor and humble
practitioner has been impelled to inaction, it surely was not intentional on his part, the
truth of the matter being that this counsel was just helpless in the face of petitioner's
failure to comply with his commitments aforesaid;" and that "this counsel deeply
regrets this incident and hereby apologizes to this Honorable Court for all his
shortcomings relative to this case, which after all were due to causes and
circumstances not of his own making and far beyond his control."
Counsel's explanation is far from satisfactory. If indeed he was not in a nancial
position to advance the necessary expenses for preparing and submitting the reply,
then he could have led timely the necessary manifestation that he was foregoing the
ling of such reply on petitioner's behalf. His inaction unduly delayed the Court's
prompt disposition of the case after the ling by respondents on February 8, 1973 of
their comments on the petition showing its lack of merit.
The Court would have then so disposed of the petition had it not been for
petitioner's plea to be given time and opportunity to le a reply to the comments in
order to fully apprise the Court of the nature of the controversy, which plea the Court
granted in reliance on his good faith. Yet after having obtained three extensions of time
for the ling of the reply, counsel simply failed to le any reply nor to give the Court the
courtesy of any explanation or manifestation for his failure to do so.
Counsel readily perceived in his explanation that his conduct comes close to
delaying the administration of justice and trifling with the Court's processes. It does not
re ect well on counsel's conduct as an o cer of the Court that after assuring the Court
that the third extension requested by him "in view of his crowded schedule" and "of
urgent professional work and daily trial engagements" would be the last within which
period he would at last le the awaited reply, for him thereafter to let the period simply
lapse without any explanation whatsoever, and worse, to wait to be found out, and have
the Court require him to explain.
Considering, however, that counsel's record shows no previous infractions on his
part since his admission to the Philippine Bar in 1953, the Court is disposed to be
lenient in this instance.
ACCORDINGLY, the Court hereby administers a reprimand on Atty. Rodrigo M.
Nera, with the warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts shall be dealt with
more severely. Let a copy of this resolution be filed in his personal record.
Makalintal, Actg. C.J., Zaldivar, Castro, Fernando, Barredo, Makasiar, Antonio and
Esguerra, JJ., concur.

Achacoso v. CA

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Achacoso v. CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-35867. June 28, 1973.]

FRANCISCO A. ACHACOSO, in his own behalf and in behalf of

Rodrigo M . Nera for petitioner.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com

You might also like