Felipe Eco v.

Juan Rodriguez, et al
107 Phil. 612 (1960)
Topic: Acts that should not be delegated by a lawyer
FACTS:
1. In 1956, Felipe Eco was granted a private woodland registration certification by
the Bureau of Forestry but the same was recommended to be cancelled by the
Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources (Juan De Rodriguez) due to
numerous oppositions, after a series of protests and counter-protests, objections
and counter-objections between the parties
2. The Secretary, upon Ecos appeal, reopened the case, and ordered a formal
investigation of the controversy in order to give the parties enough opportunity to
present their sides
3. Eco refused to submit to the investigation stating that it is unnecessary. The
Secretary then decided to cancel his private woodland registration certificate
4. Eco questioned the decision before the court but the trial court affirmed the
Secretarys decision.
5. 1958, Eco filed a notice of appeal and also posted the required appeal bond. This
was opposed because Eco filed it out of time.
6. Eco argued that the delay is due to excusable negligence which consisted of the
erroneous computation by Ecos counsels clerk of the period within which an
appeal may be made, said clerk being of the impression that the prescriptive
period to appeal in certiorari cases is also 30 days like in ordinary civil actions
instead of 15 days.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the negligence is excusable.

HELD:
No. What was delegated by Ecos counsel to his clerk was the computation itself
of the period within which the appropriate pleading may be filed. This act is hardly
prudent or wise. The duty to compute the period to appeal is a duty that devolves upon
the attorney which he cannot and should not delegate unto an employee because it
concerns a question of study of the law and its application, and the Supreme Court
considers this to be a delicate matter that should not be delegated. The negligence here
cannot, therefore, be considered excusable.

Ronnie Emmanuel P. Gravoso