49 Poblete vs CA

Facts:
This case was already decided. The Court dismissed the Petition pertained to
grant of bail to Poblete who has been charged with Estafa. The reason is that
the case had long been became moot and academic because of the
petitioners acquittal on the said criminal case in 1999.
Considering that the subject matter of the petition related to the grant of
bail to Poblete, this petition could have been immediately dismissed as far
back as 1999, had the Court been informed of the acquittal of the petitioner.
Unfortunately, neither the petitioner nor private respondent bothered to
inform the Court of the fact of acquittal. Hence, the Court resolved in its D E
C I S I O N to direct the parties respective counsels, Atty. Roberto T. Neri for
the petitioner, and Atty. Arturo E. Balbastro for the private respondent, to
explain why they should not be held liable for indirect contempt for such
failure to inform the Court.
Atty. Balbastro argues that he could not be held liable for indirect contempt
owing to his good faith and lack of intention to impede, obstruct or degrade
the administration of justice.3 On the other hand, Atty. Neri similarly invokes
his lack of intention to impede, obstruct or degrade the administration of
justice, and adds that "due to extreme pressure of his work, occasioned by
the numerous cases he has been handling . . . he totally forgot, albeit
unfortunate (sic), about the petition that he had filed in this case.
Issue:
Whether or not Atty. Balbastro and Atty. Neri are liable for indirect
contempt?
Ruling:
Yes to Atty. Neri and no to Atty. Balbastro.
We are inclined to hold Atty. Neri, counsel for petitioner, to a higher standard
of responsibility than Atty. Balbastro, counsel for the private respondent.
Indubitably, Atty. Balbastro could have immensely aided the Court had he
promptly informed us of the acquittal of the case, yet his was not the
primary responsibility to undertake such action. The burden would lie on the
party who instituted the action, the petitioner in this case. Generally, it is the
petitioner who bears greater interest in the resolution of a petition since it is
such party who seeks remedial relief from a standing lower court issuance.

Accordingly, Atty. Balbastros explanation is deemed satisfactory under these

premises.
Atty. Neri manifests that he had forgotten about the present petition, an
admission that does not speak too well of his professional work ethic. Still,
whatever extenuating effect this excuse may offer is extinguished by the
particular circumstances of this case. The acquittal of his client occurred only
two years after the filing of this petition. Two years is not a significantly long
span of time for Atty. Neri to have forgotten about his pending petition
before this Court.
Even worse, Atty. Neri filed before this Court a Notice of Change of
Address which was dated on 20 October 1999, or just five (5) days after his
client was acquitted.5 Certainly, Atty. Neri could not have already forgotten
about his clients acquittal just five days earlier, and was probably even still
flushed with the throes of victory.
Indeed, under the ethical standards the Court requires lawyers to observe,
Atty. Neris liability is patent. Under the Code of Professional Responsibility, a
lawyer is obliged to exert every effort and consider it his duty to assist in the
speedy and efficient administration of justice, 7 and correspondingly,
precluded from unduly delaying a case. 8 Under appropriate circumstances,
these violations may likewise constitute grounds for indirect contempt, as
they are in this case.
Any improper conduct tending to impede the administration of justice is
cause for punishment for indirect contempt