CANON 18

A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH

COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE.

 G.R. No. L-31630 June 23, 1988

CATALINO BLAZA and DOMINGO
GERUELA,petitioners,
vs.
THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS,respondent.

Facts:
Blaza and Geruela were convicted of the crime of robbery
On appeal, the CA dismissed the appeal of the appellants

It appears that:
Despite the fact that the CA granted the counsel de parte of the appellants
3 extensions to file the appellants brief, the counsel still failed to do so
1st extension was grounded on the alleged heavy pressure of work in the
law office
2nd extension was grounded on the allegation that the counsel had to go
to a convention and that the brief was still undergoing final revisions
3rd extension was grounded on the allegation that the brief could not be
finished because the counsel did not have copies of the transcripts of
stenographic notes and prayed that copies be sent to the trial court

 In a resolution, the CA disregarded the prayer that copies be sent

to the trial court

The last extension expired on July 1, 1969

On November 5, 1969, the CA dismissed the petitioners' appeal

Petioners contend that:

CA gravely abused its discretion in disregarding their plea
that the transcripts of stenographic notes be transmitted
CA ignored the provisions of Section 8, Rule 122which
requires that a copy of the transcripts be made available
in the Lower Court

Ruling:
The petitioners are not entitled to relief and that they are bound
by their counsel's acts
The failure of their counselde parteto file brief in their behalf is
inexcusable. He did not adopt "the norm of practice expected of
men of good intentions.
There is no satisfactory showing that no such copy of the
transcript had in truth been retained in the lower court. The
presumption is that "official duty has been regularly performed."
Despite the resolution denying the plea, the counsel did nothing

 The counsel could have presented his brief, such as it was

since according to him, the brief was already"undergoing
final revision" and would be "finished and printed" within
the second extension sought by him
The filing of a brief by an attorney within the period set
therefor by law is a duty not only to his client but also to
the court

 G.R. No. 75856 June 4, 1990

FLORECER GONZALES and LEON CAJES,
JR.,petitioners,
vs.
THE HONORABLE PRESIDING JUDGE OF BRANCH I
OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF BOHOL, THE
HONORABLE PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE 5TH
MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT OF TRINIDADSAN MIGUEL-BIEN UNIDO, BOHOL and the PEOPLE
OF THE PHILIPPINES,respondents.

Facts:
Gonzales and Cajes were convicted of the crime of less
physical injuries
On appeal, the RTC affirmed in toto the decision of the
MTCC

It appears that:
They were ordered to submit their counter-affidavits and of their
witnesses and that they were notified that the case would be
tried under the Rule on Summary Procedure
The counsel of the petitioners did not submit the affidavits but
participated in the cross-examination of the prosecutions
witnesses.
When the prosecution rested its case, they moved that the case
be deemed submitted for decision since the defense failed to
submit the affidavits

 The motion was opposed by the defense and the trial court
set the case for the reception of evidence for the defense
on November 18, 1985
However, the counsel for defense failed to appear on the
said date and likewise failed to submit the affidavits
(Allegedly, due to death of the counsels father)
The prosecution, reiterated their motion, which was finally
granted

Petioners contend that:

That they were denied the opportunity to
present their evidence

Ruling:
There is no jurisdictional error or abuse of discretion on the part of the
respondent courts. The trial court even gave them a chance to submit
the affidavits despite their initial failure to do so.
The Rule on Summary Procedure, Section 14 expressly prohibits any
witness from testifying during trial without previously submitting his
affidavit
While defense counsel may have had a valid reason to ask for a
resetting of the hearing, the court was never formally notified thereof
It would be too much to charge the court of judicial notice of counsel's
personal circumstance.

 Furthermore, petitioners had another chance to present

their arguments when the trial court required the parties
to submit their respective memoranda
According to the SC, the counsel for defendant:
Was lukewarm and less than vigilant in the performance of his
duties as defense counsel.

Took too much for granted, in the process forfeiting his clients'
opportunities to present evidence in their own behalf.

 He vainly tried to shift to the trial court the blame for the
prejudice caused thereby to his clients.

For this deplorable conduct and attitude towards his

clients' welfare and the dignity of the court, Atty. Lord
Marapao is hereby ADMONISHED and WARNED that a
repetition of the same or similar act in the future will be
dealt with more severely.