Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 76 views

    People vs. Rosqueta

    Uploaded by

    Rem Serrano
    Atty. Estacio failed to file a brief for his clients, Rosqueta Jr. and two others, who were appealing their criminal conviction to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ordered Estacio to explain his failure and suspended him from practice except to file the brief. Estacio explained that he prepared an explanation but left it with Rosqueta Sr., who said his house later burned down destroying the document. The Supreme Court found Estacio was irresponsible and negligent by not ensuring the document was properly filed. However, it lifted the suspension since Estacio's clients were withdrawing their appeal due to lack of funds. The Court warned lawyers cannot be casual about filing documents on behalf of clients.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    People vs. Rosqueta

    Uploaded by

    Rem Serrano
    76 views1 page
    Atty. Estacio failed to file a brief for his clients, Rosqueta Jr. and two others, who were appealing their criminal conviction to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ordered Estacio to explain his failure and suspended him from practice except to file the brief. Estacio explained that he prepared an explanation but left it with Rosqueta Sr., who said his house later burned down destroying the document. The Supreme Court found Estacio was irresponsible and negligent by not ensuring the document was properly filed. However, it lifted the suspension since Estacio's clients were withdrawing their appeal due to lack of funds. The Court warned lawyers cannot be casual about filing documents on behalf of clients.

    Original Description:

    Ethics Digest

    Original Title

    18. People vs. Rosqueta

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Atty. Estacio failed to file a brief for his clients, Rosqueta Jr. and two others, who were appealing their criminal conviction to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ordered Estacio to explain his failure and suspended him from practice except to file the brief. Estacio explained that he prepared an explanation but left it with Rosqueta Sr., who said his house later burned down destroying the document. The Supreme Court found Estacio was irresponsible and negligent by not ensuring the document was properly filed. However, it lifted the suspension since Estacio's clients were withdrawing their appeal due to lack of funds. The Court warned lawyers cannot be casual about filing documents on behalf of clients.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    76 views1 page

    People vs. Rosqueta

    Uploaded by

    Rem Serrano
    Atty. Estacio failed to file a brief for his clients, Rosqueta Jr. and two others, who were appealing their criminal conviction to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ordered Estacio to explain his failure and suspended him from practice except to file the brief. Estacio explained that he prepared an explanation but left it with Rosqueta Sr., who said his house later burned down destroying the document. The Supreme Court found Estacio was irresponsible and negligent by not ensuring the document was properly filed. However, it lifted the suspension since Estacio's clients were withdrawing their appeal due to lack of funds. The Court warned lawyers cannot be casual about filing documents on behalf of clients.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    PEOPLE VS ROSQUETA

    G.R. No. L-36138; 31 January 1974.


    Fernando, J.
    FACTS:
    Rosqueta Jr and two others were convicted of a crime. They appeal their conviction until it
    reached the Supreme Court. Their lawyer (counsel de parte), Atty. Gregorio Estacio, failed to file
    their Brief. And so the Supreme Court ordered Atty. Estacio to show cause why he should not be
    disciplined for failure to file said Brief. Atty. Estacio failed yet again to submit his explanation.
    The Supreme Court then suspended him from the practice of law except for the purpose of
    filing the Brief in this particular case. Atty. Estacio then filed a Motion for Reconsideration where
    he explained that he did actually prepare an explanation the same being left with Rosqueta Sr
    (father of accused) for the latter to mail it. But then Rosqueta Sr.s house burned down together with
    the explanation. He only came to know of this fact when he was preparing for the Motion for
    Reconsideration.
    Atty. Estacio also explained that his clients are withdrawing their appeal by reason of their
    failure to raise the needed fund for the appeal.
    ISSUE:
    Whether or not Atty. Estacios suspension should continue.
    RULING:
    No. His liability is mitigated. But the Supreme Court noted that Atty. Estacio has been
    irresponsible, has been negligent and inattentive to his duty to his clients. Atty. Estacio should be
    aware that even in those cases where counsel de parte is unable to secure from his clients or from
    their near relatives the amount necessary to pursue the appeal, that does not necessarily conclude his
    connection with the case. He should be aware that in the pursuance of the duty owed this Court as
    well as to a client, he cannot be too casual and unconcerned about the filing of pleadings. It is not
    enough that he prepares them; he must see to it that they are duly mailed. Such inattention as shown
    in this case is inexcusable.

    You might also like