Canon 4

In the Matter of Attorney Lope E. Adriano, Member of the Philippine Bar.

LegalEthicsDigest - People of the Philippines Vs Remigio Estebia, GR L-26868, (27 Feb. 1969)

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 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.

Page 1 of 2
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.

Page 2 of 2