3 - Nacario - Gutierrez v. Zulueta

GUTIERREZ v.
ZULUETA cases, namely, a workmen's compensation case and a civil case

July 19, 1990 | Per Curiam | Rule 8 filed with CFI of Zamboanga Del Sur. The complaint concerns
DIGEST MADE BY: the latter case.
Sienna Nacario 3. The complainant filed the said civil case against his former
CLUE: Appellee’s brief; disbarment employer, the Singer Sewing Machine Company. The trial court
ruled in his favor. On appeal to the CA, the RTC decision was
reverse and CA ruled in favor of the company. Gutierrez
PETITIONER: BASILIO C. GUTIERREZ
RESPONDENTS: ATTY. LEONARDO N. ZULUETA maintains that the case was resolved against him primarily
because Zulueta did not file the required brief with the CA and
such omission is attributable to the dishonesty of the
DOCTRINE:
A responsible lawyer is expected to supervise the work in his office respondent lawyer.
with respect to all the pleadings to be filed in court and he should not 4. To support this claim, Gutierrez alleges that he wired P400 to
Zulueta in order for the latter to prepare and print the required
delegate this responsibility, lock, stock and barrel, to his office
secretary. brief. Thereafter, Zulueta assured him that the brief had already
been filed in court.
RECIT- READY SUMMARY: 5. In the investigation conducted by the Office of the Solicitor
General, Zulueta testified that he indeed received the P400 and
Zulueta was Gutierrez’s counsel in a workmen's compensation gave the amount to his secretary. He also ordered his secretary
case and a civil case against Singer Sewing Machine Company. to attend to the filing of the brief because he had to leave for
Gutierrez initiated a disciplinary proceeding against Atty. Zulueta, Pagadian City.
seeking for his disbarment, because the latter failed to file the required 6. The Office of the Solicitor General filed its report recommending
brief with the appellate court in the civil case which caused material that Zulueta be found guilty of not having exercised the due
prejudice to the complainant. Zulueta claims that this failure was diligence required of a member of the legal profession in
attributable to his office secretary who assured him that the brief was connection with his duties to his clients and accordingly impose
filed already. The SC found this explanation to be devoid of merit upon him the penalty of suspension from the practice of law for
a period of one year.
because a lawyer is expected to supervise the work in his office with
respect to all the pleadings to be filed in court and he should not
delegate this responsibility to his office secretary. Since Atty. Zulueta PROCEDURAL HISTORY: none – this is a disciplinary proceeding
failed to live up to the duties and responsibilities of a member of the
legal profession, his suspension from the practice of law is in order. ISSUE/S:
1. WON Atty. Zulueta failed to exercise due diligence in protecting

FACTS:
and attending to the interest of his client when he failed to file
the required brief - YES
1. The complainant (Gutierrez) filed with the SC a sworn letter-
complaint seeking the disbarment of Atty. Zulueta on the
RULING:
grounds of dishonesty and conduct unbecoming of a member of
the legal profession.
2. The complainant alleges that the Zulueta was his counsel in two
WHEREFORE, Atty. Leonardo N. Zulueta is hereby SUSPENDED from
the practice of law for a period of one (1) year effective from the
date of his receipt of this resolution.
RATIO:
1. YES
• Based on the record of the case, Atty. Zulueta undoubtedly

failed to exercise due diligence in protecting and attending
to the interest of his client. His failure to undertake the
necessary measures to submit the required brief certainly
caused material prejudice to the complainant inasmuch as
the appellate court reversed the decision of the trial court
which was in favor of the latter.
• The explanation given by the respondent lawyer to the
effect that the failure is attributable to the negligence of his
secretary is devoid of merit. A responsible lawyer is
expected to supervise the work in his office with respect to
all the pleadings to be filed in court and he should not
delegate this responsibility, lock, stock and barrel, to his
office secretary. If it were otherwise, irresponsible
members of the legal profession can avoid appropriate
disciplinary action by simply disavowing liability and
attributing the problem to the fault or negligence of the
office secretary.

3 - Nacario - Gutierrez v. Zulueta

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

3 - Nacario - Gutierrez v. Zulueta

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

3 - Nacario - Gutierrez v. Zulueta

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

GUTIERREZ v.

ZULUETA cases, namely, a workmen's compensation case and a civil case

1. WON Atty. Zulueta failed to exercise due diligence in protecting

• Based on the record of the case, Atty. Zulueta undoubtedly

You might also like