G.R. NO. 128859 - AIDA POBLETE AND HON. REUBEN P. DE LA CRUZ, IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 272, MARIKINA CITY, VS. COURT OF APPEALS AND WILLIAM LU.R E S O L U T I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, Atty. Balbastros explanation is deemed satisfactory under these premises. Atty. Neri manifests that he had forgotten about the present petition, an admission that does not speak too well of his professional work ethic. Still, whatever extenuating effect this excuse may offer is extinguished by the particular circumstances of this case. The acquittal of his client occurred only two years after the filing of this petition. Two years is not a significantly long span of time for Atty. Neri to have forgotten about his pending petition before this Court. There is no good reason why he should not have notified the Court of his clients acquittal immediately after that fact. Even worse, Atty. Neri filed before this Court a Notice of Change of Address which was dated on 20 October 1999, or just five (5) days after his client was acquitted . [5] Certainly, Atty. Neri could not have already forgotten about his clients acquittal just five days earlier, and was probably even still flushed with the throes of victory. It would have caused little inconvenience on the part of Atty. Neri to inform the Court of the fact of acquittal, since he was anyway letting the Court know of his change of address. This circumstance spirits away his defense beyond the realm of excusable. It does not also escape this Courts attention that in the litigation of this petition before this Court, Atty. Neri had previously been subjected to disciplinary action by this Court owing to inexcusable neglect. Atty. Neri failed to file a reply in behalf of his client despite direction to do so, and was accordingly fined One Thousand Pesos (P1,000.00) in a Resolution dated 19 October 1998. [6] Indeed, under the ethical standards the Court requires lawyers to observe, Atty. Neris liability is patent. Under the Code of Professional Responsibility, a lawyer is obliged to exert every effort and consider it his duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice, [7] and correspondingly, precluded from unduly delaying a case. [8] Under appropriate circumstances, these violations may likewise constitute grounds for indirect contempt, as they are in this case. Any improper conduct tending to impede the administration of justice is cause for punishment for indirect contempt. [9] A person adjudged guilty of indirect contempt may be punished by a fine not exceeding thirty thousand pesos or imprisonment not exceeding six (6) months or both. Under the circumstances, a fine of Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00) would be appropriate. WHEREFORE , Atty. Roberto T. Neri is hereby found GUILTY of INDIRECT CONTEMPT and ordered to PAY A FINE of FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P5,000.00) within ten (10) days from notice, or to suffer imprisonment of ten (10) days in case he fails to pay the fine. SO ORDERED.