You're currently signed in as:
User
Add TAGS to your cases to easily locate them or to build your SYLLABUS.
Please SIGN IN to use this feature.
https://www.lawyerly.ph/juris/view/c3fcc?user=fbGU2WFpmaitMVEVGZ2lBVW5xZ2RVdz09
[PEOPLE OP PHILIPPINES v. EDUARDO BERDIDA Y INGUITO](https://www.lawyerly.ph/juris/view/c3fcc?user=fbGU2WFpmaitMVEVGZ2lBVW5xZ2RVdz09)
{case:c3fcc}
Highlight text as FACTS, ISSUES, RULING, PRINCIPLES to generate case DIGESTS and REVIEWERS.
Please LOGIN use this feature.
Show printable version with highlights
118 Phil. 1043

[ G.R. No. L-20183, September 30, 1963 ]

THE PEOPLE OP THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. EDUARDO BERDIDA Y INGUITO, ET AL., DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS.

R E S O L U T I O N

DIZON, J.:

The present case was  forwarded to Us by the Court of  First Instance  of Manila for compulsory  review, the defendants  (Criminal Case No.  52339 of the lower court) having been sentenced to death, etc. On  March 13,  1963, Atty. Agustin R. Homeres, with address at 1-A Road  8 St., Project  6,  Quezon City,  was notified  by registered mail to file his brief  for appellants  Loreto Saber on and  Jesus Felicia within thirty (30)  days from notice.  

The corresponding retain card appears  to  have been signed by one S. Flores on April 22, 1963.

On May  13, 1963, the Clerk of  this  Court addressed a letter to the Chief of Police,  Quezon City, with another copy of the notice mentioned above,  with the request that the same be  served upon Atty. Homeres, and to inform the court thereafter of  the date  of said  service.   The Chief of Police  of Quezon City subsequently   reported  in writing that  the notice was delivered to  Mrs. Soledad  C. Homeres on June 9 1963.

On June 14,  1963,  we passed a resolution  requiring Atty.  Homeres to explain, within  ten  (10) days  from notice, why disciplinary action should not be taken against him for his failure to file the brief for his clients, notice in  connection therewith  having been  served upon him (apparently through one S. Flores, as stated above), since April 22  of the  same  year.  No explanation appears to have been submitted by him, but on July 8, 1963, he filed an urgent petition for a thirty (30) day extension of time, alleging  therein  that he  had received the  notice to file brief only on June 9,  1963,  (the notice  served through the Quezon City Police Department). This  petition was granted by our resolution of July 15  of  the same year. Prior to this, however, it appears  that due to the non-filing of the brief by Atty. Homeres within the time given in the first notice for the purpose, dated March  13, 1963, and received by  one S. Flores  on April 22  of the same year, Atty.  Rafael Ortigas, Jr.  was appointed counsel de officio for Saberon and Felicia and required to  prepare their brief within thirty  (30) days  from notice.  On July 29 of the same year,  Atty. Ortigas appear  to have filed a motion for thirty  (30) days extension which was also granted by  our resolution of August 8, 1963.

On June 27, 1963, we  passed a resolution imposing a fine of P100.00 upon Atty. Agustin Homeres for his failure to file the brief for appellants Saberon and Felicia,  copy of which resolution was addressed to him at 1-A Road 8 St., Project 6, Quezon City,  but was returned to sender because it was not  claimed by the addressee.

Finally, on August 8, 1963, Atty. Homeres filed a written explanation coupled with a petition for thirty  (30) days extension from August 9, 1963, alleging that he had not received the notice of March 13,  1963; that the S. Flores who appears to  have received the same on  his behalf on April 22, 1963 is  totally unknown to him and was not  a resident  of 1-A Road 8  St., Project 6, Quezon City; that the only notice  he had received was  the  one served upon his  wife  through  the Quezon City Police Department  on June 9, 1963, in connection with which, on July 8 of the same year, he filed a motion for an extension of thirty  (30)  days,  which was granted, the extension to expire  on August  9 of the  same year.

We do not find in the record any conclusive proof that the S. Flores who appears to have received the first notice to file brief  was duly authorized by Atty. Homeres. On the other hand, what the record discloses is that a second notice was duly served on him, through his wife, by the Quezon   City  Police Department, on June 9, 1963 and that before the period therein given expired, he filed  the corresponding motion for  thirty  (30) days extension,  which was   granted  by our resolution of July 15, 1963, the  extension to expire on August 9 of the same year,  and that on August 8, he filed a second  motion for an extension of thirty  (30)  days.

In view of  all  the foregoing,  our resolution  of June 27, 1963 imposing a fine of P100.00  upon Atty. Homeres is hereby set aside,  and his  last motion is   granted and he is hereby granted a definitely last extension  of  thirty (30)  days from notice hereof within which to file the brief for appellants Saberon and Felicia.

The appointment of Atty. Rafael Ortigas, Jr. as counsel de officio for the same appellants is hereby set aside, and let the corresponding notice be served on him accordingly.

Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Bautista Anqelo, Labrador, Barrera, Paredes, Regala and   Makalintal  JJ., concur.


tags