Canon 4

In the Matter of Attorney Lope E. Adriano, Member of the Philippine Bar. People of the
Philippines vs Remigio Estebia (February 27, 1969, G.R. No. L-26868)
Facts:
Remigio Estebia was convicted of rape by the Court of First Instance of Samar and was sentenced to
suffer the capital punishment. On December, Lope E. Adriano was appointed as Estebia’s counsel de
oficio when his case came up before the Supreme Court on review. Adriano was required to prepare
and file his brief within 30 days from notice.
On January 19,1967, Adriano sought a 30-day extention to file appellant’s brief in mimeograph form.
On February 18, Adriano again moved for a 20-day extension. A third extension was filed on March 8
for 15 days. On March 27 Adriano filed for another 15-day extension and on April 11 he moved for a
“last” extension of ten days. However, on April 21 he sought a special extension of five days. All of
these motions for extension were granted by the Court and the brief was due on April 26, 1967.
However, no brief was filed.
For failing to comply, the Supreme Court resolved to impose upon Adriano a fine of P500 with a
warning that a more drastic disciplinary action will be taken against him upon further non-
compliance.
On December 5, 1968, Adriano was ordered to show cause why he should not be suspended from the
practice of law for gross misconduct and violation of his oath of office as attorney.
A resolution was personally served upon him on December 18, 1968 however Adriano ignored the
said resolution.
Issue: Whether or not the conduct of Atty. Lope E. Adriano as member of the bar deserve disciplinary
action.
Held:
Yes, by specific authority, this Court may assign an attorney to render professional aid to a destitute
appellant in a criminal case who is unable to employ an attorney. Correspondingly, a duty is imposed
upon the lawyer so assigned "to render the required service." A lawyer so appointed "as counsel for
an indigent prisoner", our Canons of Professional Ethics demand, "should always exert his best
efforts" in the indigent's behalf. No excuse at all has been offered for non-presentation of appellant's
brief. And yet, between December 20, 1966, when he received notice of his appointment, and
December 5, 1968, when the last show cause order was issued by this Court, more than sufficient
time was afforded counsel to prepare and file his brief de oficio. In the face of the fact that no brief
has ever been filed, counsel's statements in his motions for extension have gone down to the level of
empty and meaningless words; at best, have dubious claim to veracity. Adriano’s pattern of conduct
reveals a propensity to benumb appreciation of his obligation as counsel de oficio and of the courtesy
and respect that should be accorded this Court. For the reasons given Attorney Lope E. Adriano was
suspended from the practice of law throughout the Philippines for a period of one (1) year.