View full case

ARSENIA T. BERGONIA v. ATTY. ARSENIO A. MERRERA

FACTS:

This administrative case involves a motion for extension to file an appellant's brief, which carries the presumption that the applicant-lawyer will file the pleading within the granted period. Atty. Arsenio A. Merrera, the respondent, was accused of violating Canons 12 and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility by Arsenia T. Bergonia, the complainant. Complainant alleged that due to respondent's inexcusable negligence as her counsel, her appeal was dismissed. Despite obtaining two extensions, respondent failed to file the required appellant's brief in the Court of Appeals. The matter was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report, and recommendation. The IBP Commissioner recommended a six-month suspension for respondent, and the IBP Board of Governors approved the recommendation. Respondent was then notified of the IBP Resolution and Commissioner's Report.

The complainant filed a case for the quieting of title against her niece and the Parayno spouses. The trial court ruled in favor of the Parayno spouses, and the decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals and became final and executory. The Parayno spouses then filed a case to recover possession, and respondent became complainant's counsel of record. The trial court rendered a decision ordering complainant to vacate the premises. Complainant appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals, and respondent received a Notice to File Brief. Respondent filed a motion for extension, which was granted. However, he filed another motion for extension before the first one expired, and it was also granted. Despite the two extensions, respondent failed to file the appellant's brief. As a result, the CA dismissed the appeal. The IBP Commissioner found respondent guilty of inexcusable negligence and recommended a six-month suspension, a recommendation that was approved by the IBP Board of Governors.

ISSUES:

  1. Did the respondent lawyer commit inexcusable negligence by failing to file the required appellant's brief within the granted extension period?

  2. Is the failure to file the appellant's brief without reasonable excuse a violation of the Canons of Professional Responsibility?

RULING:

  1. The respondent lawyer committed inexcusable negligence by failing to file the required appellant's brief within the granted extension period. The failure to file the appellant's brief without any reasonable excuse is a violation of the Canons of Professional Responsibility.

PRINCIPLES:

  • A lawyer is expected to exercise due diligence and competence in representing his client.

  • A motion for extension carries with it the presumption that the lawyer will file the pleading within the period granted.

  • Failure to file the required pleading without any reasonable excuse is a violation of the Canons of Professional Responsibility.

  • A lawyer may be administratively sanctioned, especially if his negligence results in damage to the client.