In Caoile v. Macaraeg, the Supreme Court addressed the administrative complaint for disbarment filed against an attorney accused of neglecting his client’s appeal. While the attorney was found to have violated the Code of Professional Responsibility by failing to file an appellant’s brief despite multiple extensions, the Court ultimately dismissed the case. This decision was influenced by supervening circumstances, primarily the attorney’s presumed death and the complainant’s apparent loss of interest in pursuing the case. The ruling underscores the importance of diligence among lawyers while also recognizing the impact of extraneous factors on disciplinary proceedings.
When Duty Calls, But the Attorney Doesn’t: A Case of Neglect and Presumed Demise
Francisco Caoile filed a disbarment complaint against his attorney, Marcelino Macaraeg, alleging neglect of duty. Caoile and others had hired Macaraeg to represent them in a civil case regarding land ownership. After losing in the Court of First Instance (CFI), they decided to appeal. Macaraeg filed a notice of appeal and subsequently requested three extensions to file the appellant’s brief. However, he failed to submit the brief within the extended period, leading the Court of Appeals (CA) to dismiss the appeal. Caoile claimed they were unaware of the dismissal until they received a writ of execution and a notice of public auction for their property. When confronted, Macaraeg allegedly blamed the loss on their failure to fully pay his fees.
Macaraeg, in his defense, argued that the non-filing of the brief was due to his clients’ failure to provide the necessary funds. He claimed to have reminded Caoile to provide the amount needed for the transcript and printing of the brief. He even advanced some appeal expenses. However, the Court considered the violation of Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which states:
A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.
The Supreme Court highlighted that a lawyer should not neglect a legal matter entrusted to them, and negligence makes them liable.
The case was referred to the Solicitor General, who conducted hearings and required memoranda from both parties. During this process, a subpoena served upon Macaraeg was returned with a notation indicating his death. The case was then transferred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). Despite attempts to notify the parties and the heirs of Macaraeg, no response was received. The IBP Commissioner recommended a two-year suspension for Macaraeg, finding that he violated Rule 12.03 of Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility:
A lawyer shall not, after obtaining extensions of time to file pleadings, memoranda or briefs, let the period lapse without submitting the same or offering an explanation for his failure to do so.
The IBP Board of Governors adopted the findings but reduced the penalty to a one-year suspension.
The Supreme Court acknowledged Macaraeg’s violation of professional responsibility. The court noted that despite a considerable amount of time, Macaraeg failed to file the brief, leading to the dismissal of his clients’ appeal. His excuse of non-payment was deemed insufficient, as he could have advanced the payment or withdrawn from the case. Rule 22.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility allows a lawyer to withdraw services if the client fails to comply with the retainer agreement. Nevertheless, the Court considered the supervening circumstance of Macaraeg’s presumed death. Records indicated he would have been 108 years old at the time of the decision, and a subpoena suggested he had already passed away in 1972. Citing Apiag v. Cantero, the Court dismissed the administrative case due to the respondent’s death during the proceedings.
FAQs
| What was the key issue in this case? | The key issue was whether an attorney should be held administratively liable for neglecting to file an appellant’s brief, resulting in the dismissal of his client’s appeal, despite the attorney’s claim of non-payment of fees and the supervening circumstance of his presumed death. |
| What was the ruling of the Supreme Court? | The Supreme Court dismissed the disbarment complaint against Atty. Macaraeg, citing his presumed death and the complainant’s apparent lack of interest in pursuing the case as supervening circumstances. |
| What is Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility? | Rule 18.03 states that a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable. |
| What is Rule 12.03 of Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility? | Rule 12.03 states that a lawyer shall not, after obtaining extensions of time to file pleadings, memoranda, or briefs, let the period lapse without submitting the same or offering an explanation for his failure to do so. |
| Under what circumstances can a lawyer withdraw their services? | Rule 22.01 allows a lawyer to withdraw services if the client fails to comply with the retainer agreement or for other good causes. |
| What was the basis for the IBP’s initial recommendation? | The IBP initially recommended a two-year suspension based on Atty. Macaraeg’s violation of Rule 12.03 for failing to file the appellant’s brief after obtaining multiple extensions. |
| Why was the administrative case ultimately dismissed? | The case was dismissed due to the supervening circumstance of Atty. Macaraeg’s presumed death, as well as the complainant’s apparent loss of interest in pursuing the case. |
| What is the significance of the Apiag v. Cantero case? | The Apiag v. Cantero case serves as a precedent where the Court dismissed an administrative case against a respondent who died during the pendency of the case. |
The Caoile v. Macaraeg case illustrates the complexities of disciplinary proceedings against attorneys, particularly when dealing with issues of neglect and the impact of external factors such as death. While attorneys are expected to diligently handle their clients’ affairs, the Court retains the discretion to consider supervening circumstances in determining the appropriate course of action.
For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.
Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: FRANCISCO CAOILE VS. ATTY. MARCELINO MACARAEG, A.C. No. 720, June 17, 2015