G.R. No. L-36138 January 31, 1974 THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ANTONIO ROS !

ETA, JR., E!GENIO ROS !ETA an" #ITONG $RINGAS, "%&%n"an'(-a))%**an'(+ ATT,. GREGORIO $. ESTA#IO, respondent. FERNAN-O, J.: FA#TS. The Supreme Court required respondent Gregorio B. Estacio, counsel de parte for appellants (Antonio osqueta, !r., Euse"io osqueta, and Citong Bringas# to sho$ cause $h% disciplinar% action should not "e ta&en against him for failure to file the "rief for appellants $ithin the reglementar% period. 'e failed to sho$ cause and $as suspended from the practice of la$. 'e filed a motion for reconsideration $herein it appeared that he did see& to e(plain his failure to file the "rief on time, "ut he left it to "e mailed $ith Antonio osqueta, Sr., father of appellants Antonio and Euse"io, $ho, ho$ever, $as una"le to do so as his house caught fire. 'e onl% came to &no$ of said fact until the preparation of his motion for reconsideration. Estacio also stressed that appellants informed him the% $ould $ithdra$ the appeal as the% could not raise the mone% needed for pursuing it. The Court required appellants to comment on a motion for reconsideration of respondent concerning specificall% their alleged desire to $ithdra$ appeal. Thereafter, there $as a motion of respondent su"mitting t$o affidavits, one from Antonio and Bringas, and the other from Euse"io osqueta $herein the% indicated their consent and approval to respondent)s motion to $ithdra$ appeal.

ISS!E. *+, Estacio faithfull% o"served his dut% as counsel to his client, and to represent the poor and the oppressed in the prosecution of their claims or the defense of their rights, to a"solve him from his misconduct. R!LING. espondent)s lia"ilit% is thus mitigated "ut he cannot "e a"solved from the irresponsi"le conduct of $hich he is guilt%. espondent should "e a$are that even in those cases $here counsel de parte is una"le to secure from appellants the amount necessar% to pursue the appeal, that does not necessaril% conclude his connection $ith the case. -t has "een a commenda"le practice of some mem"ers of the "ar under such circumstances, to "e designated as counsel de oficio. That $a% the interest of .ustice is "est served. Appellants $ill then continue to receive the "enefits of advocac% from one $ho is familiar $ith the facts of the case. *hat is more, there is no undue dela% in the administration of .ustice. /a$%ers of such categor% are entitled to commendation. The% manifest fidelit% to the concept that la$ is a profession and not a mere trade $ith those engaged in it "eing motivated solel% "% the desire to ma&e mone%. espondent)s conduct %ields a different impression. *hat has earned a reproof ho$ever is his irresponsi"ilit%. 'e should "e a$are that in the pursuance of the dut% o$ed this Court as $ell as to a client, he cannot "e too casual and unconcerned a"out the filing of pleadings. -t is not enough that he prepares them0 he must see to it that the% are dul% mailed. Such inattention as sho$n in this case is ine(cusa"le. At an% rate, the suspension meted on him under the circumstances is more than .ustified. -t seems, ho$ever, that $ell-nigh five months had elapsed. That $ould suffice to atone for his misdeed. The suspension of Att%. Gregorio B. Estacio is lifted "ut is censured for negligence and inattention to dut%.