A.C. No. 5686 - TEODULO F. ENRIQUEZ, COMPLAINANT, V. ATTY. EDILBERTO B. LAVADIA, JR..R E S O L U T I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, competence, not only in the knowledge of law, but also in the management of the cases by giving these cases appropriate attention and due preparation, is expected from a lawyer. [44] (Citations omitted) In Mariveles v. Mallari , [45] we disbarred Atty. Mallari for violating Rules 12.03 and 18.03 of the CPR. There, Atty. Mallari, after being granted a total of 245 days to file his client's appellant's brief failed to file the same, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal. The Court considered Atty. Mallari's act a shameless disregard of his duties as a lawyer and found him to be unfit for membership in the noble profession. [46] In the recent case of Figueras v. Jimenez , [47] Atty. Jimenez was found administratively liable for failing to file the appellant's brief on behalf of his client. Here, Enriquez paid a total of P29,750.00 as acceptance fee and other fees relating to the preparation of pleadings for the case including the appeal. Atty. Lavadia however failed to discharge his duties. He failed to file his client's position paper rendering his client in default. While he filed a notice of appeal and several motions for extension of time to file the appeal memorandum, all of which were granted by the lower court, he ultimately neglected to file the appeal memorandum. Thus, following our pronouncement in Solidon , Atty. Lavadia has clearly transgressed Canon 18 and Rule 18.03 of the CPR thereby making him administratively liable. As in Mariveles , Atty. Lavadia requested and was granted extensions of time to file the appeal memorandum after he filed the notice of appeal with sufficient bond. The lower court granted him four extensions totaling 71 days after which time he still failed to file the appeal memorandum. His failure adversely affected the cause of Enriquez, his client. In repeatedly asking for extensions of time without actually filing the appeal memorandum, Atty. Lavadia is liable under Rule 12.03 of the CPR. LAWYER AND THE COURTS: RULE 12.03 IN RELATION TO CANON 11 Under Canon 11 [48] of the CPR a lawyer is required to observe and maintain due respect to the court and its judicial officers. We read this provision in relation to Rules 10.03 [49] and 12.03 of the CPR for this rule does not merely affect the client but the judicial process. In Vaflor-Fabroa v. Paguinto , [50] this Court reiterated its previous ruling in Sebastian v. Bajar [51] where we stated that: xxx Respondent's cavalier attitude in repeatedly ignoring the orders of the Supreme Court constitutes utter disrespect to the judicial institution . Respondent's conduct indicates a high degree of irresponsibility. A Court's Resolution is "not to be construed as a mere request, nor should it be complied with partially, inadequately, or selectively". Respondent's obstinate refusal to comply with the Court's orders "not only betrays a recalcitrant flaw in her character; it also underscores her disrespect of the Court's lawful orders which is only too deserving o