A.C. No. 720 - FRANCISCO CAOILE, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. MARCELINO MACARAEG.R E S O L U T I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, Atty. Macaraeg filed a notice of appeal. Thrice he moved for extension of time to file appellants' brief. In his last motion for extension, [2] he alleged that he was already in the process of doing the finishing touches on the brief and just needed to have it printed. Yet, the extended period expired without Atty. Macaraeg filing any brief. Hence, upon motion of the opposing party, the CA dismissed the appeal. [3] The dismissal became final and executory on December 13, 1963. [4] Francisco averred that they were unaware of the dismissal of their appeal until they were served with the CFI's writ of execution [5] and a notice of sale at public auction [6] of their property in 1965. After confirming with the CA that they indeed lost the case, Francisco confronted Atty. Macaraeg who informed him that they lost the case because they failed to pay him in full. [7] Hence, this administrative complaint against Atty. Macaraeg for neglect and dereliction of duty. In his Answer, [8] Atty. Macaraeg averred that Francisco and his co-defendants did not pay in full for his services in filing the appeal. Anent the pacto de retro sale which Francisco and his wife executed in his favor supposedly to cover the balance of his professional fees, Atty. Macaraeg claimed that it was Francisco who insisted on its execution, and that, contrary to Francisco's claim, it was intended as payment for his services while representing Francisco before the CFI, and not as payment for his services in filing the appeal. Atty. Macaraeg also claimed that, in any case, Francisco did not honor the said pacto de retro sale as the possession of the lot was never turned over to him. [9] Atty. Macaraeg denied Francisco's accusation that he neglected their case. He pointed out that to push through with the appeal he even advanced some of the appeal expenses. While he admitted that he failed to submit an appellants' brief, he averred that the same was actually the fault of his clients who failed to provide the necessary funds to file said brief. According to him, he constantly reminded Francisco to give him the amount necessary to cover the costs of the transcript and printing of the appeal brief. He even filed three motions for extension of time to file brief to give Francisco more time to come up with the said payment. Still, Francisco was unable to pay. Moreover, Atty. Macaraeg was not reimbursed for the amount he advanced for appeal expenses. On September 22, 1966, this Court referred the Complaint to the Solicitor General for investigation, report and recommendation. [10] Proceedings before the Solicitor General From March to November 1967, the Solicitor General conducted several hearings. [11] Thereafter, the parties were required to submit their respective memoranda. [12] Atty. Macaraeg submitted his Memorandum on January 18, 1968, [13] while Francisco submitted his Memorandum on March 25, 1968. [14] In November 1972, the Office of the Solicitor General again summoned the