Case No. 16 Poblete Vs CA
Case No. 16 Poblete Vs CA
Case No. 16 Poblete Vs CA
AIDA POBLETE and HON. REUBEN P. DE LA CRUZ, in his capacity as Presiding Judge, Regional Trial
Court, Branch 272, Marikina City vs. COURT OF APPEALS and WILLIAM LU
FACTS:
It was only in 2004 that the Court learned of the acquittal of Poblete in 1999, after the transmittal by the
Marikina City RTC to this Court of the records of the said criminal case. 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 DECISION 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. 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, about the petition that he had filed in this case."
ISSUE: Whether or not the failure of Atty. Neri to inform the court of the acquittal of Poblete constitute
a violation of the CPR?
RULING: YES.
CANON 12 of The Code of Professional Responsibility provides that “a lawyer is obliged to exert every
effort and consider it his duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice.”
Atty. Neri’s manifestation that he had forgotten about the present petition is an improper conduct
tending to impede the administration of justice. The Court's docket is already overstocked as it is, and
any and all attempts by the parties to lighten the burden by withdrawing those unnecessary litigations
are always welcome. In this case, the Court would have been spared the burden of deliberating on the
petition.
WHEREFORE, Atty. Roberto T. Neri is hereby found GUILTY of INDIRECT CONTEMPT and ordered to PAY
A FINE of FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P5,000.00) within ten (10) days from notice, or to suffer
imprisonment of ten (10) days in case he fails to pay the fine.