Pale.-in-re.-briones-and-balatbat-vs-arias.docx

[A.C. No. 5486 August 15, 2001] Formerly A.C. CBD Case No. 00-690 In Re: ATTY. DAVID BRIONES PONENTE: PUNO, J. NATURE: Arose from the continued failure of Atty. Briones to submit necessary appellant brief to the Second Division of SC FACTS:  Atty. Briones is the counsel of the accused-appellant Restituto Cabacan in the case: People of the Philippines vs. Restituto Cabacan  Atty. Briones was given notice through mail to file appellant’s brief but failed in different occasions: 1st: He was given 30 days to file the brief but failed (August 6, 1998). 2nd: Submit brief within 10 days and show cause order why Atty. Briones should not be disciplined by the Court – failed (April 28, 1999). The Court referred the matter of the repeated failure of Atty. Briones to file appellant's brief to the IBP for evaluation, report and recommendation (August 9, 1999). IBP Commissioner Victoria Gonzales-De Los Reyes informed Atty. Briones of the Court's referral of the matter to the IBP and required him to file his Comment within 5 days from receipt of the letter – again, he did not file any Comment (October 7, 1999). COMMISSIONER DE LOS REYES’ FINDINGS:  People vs. Cabacan has remained pending in view of the negligence of Atty. Briones to file the required appellant's brief. 

It is evident that he violated Rule 18.03 of Canon 18 of the CPR.



She recommends that he be SUSPENDED from the practice of law profession for a period of six (6) months.

IBP: Adopted and Approved the Report and Recommendation. May 26, 2000, Atty. Briones filed with the IBP a Motion for Reconsideration/Reinvestigation. He contended:  He filed a Comment on the administrative case but the same was not considered by the investigating commissioner. Neither did the IBP conduct a formal investigation. IBP: Motion is DENIED. On October 5, 2000, Atty. Briones filed with the Court a Manifestation praying that his Comment submitted to the IBP on October 13, 2000 be considered by the Court.  

He failed to file an appellant’s brief in the said case because he never received a copy of the resolution requiring him to file said brief. If ever a copy was received by his secretary, the latter was not able to give it to him because he had already ceased practicing law due to failing health.

ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Briones properly withdrew his services as counsel. HELD: NO. He is still the counsel of record. RATIO DECIDENDI: The cessation of his law practice is not an excuse for his failure to file the required brief. Even if it were true that Atty. Briones has stopped practicing law, he still could not ignore the directives coming from the Court.

It does not appear from the records of the said case that Atty. Briones has withdrawn his appearance. Unless he has withdrawn his appearance in the case, the Court would still consider him as counsel for the accused-appellant and he is expected to comply with all its orders and directives. IBP Commissioner Victoria Gonzales-De Los Reyes informed Atty. Briones of the Court's referral of the matter to the IBP and required him to file his Comment RULING: Atty. David P. Briones is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for six (6) months.

Balatbat vs Arias Sanchez FACTS: • In the Complaint dated September 8, 1976, Luisito Balat-bat alleged that he engaged the services of Atty. Edgardo Arias y Sanchez to undertake his defense in the said civil case. • According to complainant, he did not attend the scheduled hearings because respondent told him that there was no need to be present. But when he verified the status of the case from the then City Court of Manila, he was surprised to learn that a Decision dated June 21, 1976 had already been rendered which was adverse to him. • Atty. Sanchez alleged that it was Luisito who always cannot attend the scheduled hearings. • There was also a confusion as to the identity of Atty. Edgardo Arias y Sanchez and Atty. Edgardo Sorca Arias living in Palawan. Just added drama because when the notice of the hearing was sent, it was sent to Atty. Sorca in Palawan and not to Atty. Arias in Manila. ISSUE: Whether the respondent should be disbarred or suspended. RULING: Respondent was SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one (1) month, and warned that a repetition of the same act shall be dealt with more severely. The settled rule is that the attorney-client relation continues until the client gives a notice of discharge, or manifests to the court or tribunal where the case is pending that counsel is being discharged, with a copy served upon the adverse party. Thus, the only way to be relieved as counsel is to have either the written conformity of his client or an order from the court relieving him of the duties of counsel, in accordance with Rule 138, Section 2620 of the Rules of Court. Respondent’s actuations likewise violate Rule 18.04, which mandates that a lawyer keep the client informed of the status of the case and respond within a reasonable time to a client’s request for information. A client must never be left in the dark for to do so would destroy the trust, faith and confidence reposed in the lawyer so retained in particular and the legal profession in general.