Case Digest: Ang vs Grageda 490 SCRA 424, G.R. No. 166239

Ang vs Grageda 490 SCRA 424, G.R. No. 166239, June 8, 2006

Subject: Basic Legal Ethics

FACTS

In February 1996, Janet Ang had liposuction surgery on her thighs at the EPG Cosmetic and Aesthetics Surgery Clinic in Alabang, Muntinlupa City. She was attended to and operated on by Dr. Erniefel Grageda, who owned and ran the said clinic. In the course of the operation, Janet began to have fits of seizure. The doctor tried to stop the seizures but Janet had a grandmal seizure that led to her death. Medico-legal experts of the National Bureau of Investigation listed the cause of death as "irreversible shock."

Ang Ho Chem, Janet’s father, filed a criminal complaint against respondent. In June 1996, the Office of the City Prosecutor of Muntinlupa filed an Information2 against Grageda for reckless imprudence resulting to homicide before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Muntinlupa City. The accusatory portion of the Information reads: that on or about the 4th (sic) day of February 1996, in the City of Muntinlupa, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, being then a doctor of EPG Cosmetics and Aesthetics Surgical Clinic, without taking the necessary care and precaution to avoid injury to person, did then and there, unlawfully and feloniously conducted a liposuction operation on the person of Janet Ang in a careless, negligent and imprudent manner without employing the necessary corrective and/or preventive measures to prevent and/or arrest the irreversible shock, which directly caused her death.

In 2002, the court rendered its judgement acquitting accused Grageda. The lower court ruled that the accused complied with the minimum standards followed by physicians in the treatment of their patients; that liposuction of the thighs is a minor surgery, hence, the clinical setting of accused was acceptable; that in trying to save the life of Janet Ang, accused followed the standard procedure in the conduct of the same; that all the elements of the crime of reckless imprudence are not present in the case; that accused was not negligent; and that the liposuction surgery was not the proximate cause of the death of Janet Ang. the Court finds accused Dr. Erniefel Grageda NOT GUILTY of the crime of reckless imprudence resulting to homicide.

ISSUE

Whether or not Petitioner’s legal counsel acted diligently.

RULING

No.

Under Rule 12.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, a lawyer should not, after obtaining extensions of time to file pleadings, memoranda, or briefs, let the period lapse without submitting the same and making an explanation for failing to do so. A lawyer is obliged to serve his client with competence and diligence and defend the latter's cause with wholehearted fidelity, care, and dedication. A lawyer's fidelity to the cases of his client requires him to be ever mindful of the responsibilities that should be expected of him.  He is mandated to exert his best effort to protect, within the bounds of the law, the interest of his client.  He should never neglect a legal matter entrusted to him.

In this case, Atty. Solis, despite having been granted several extensions to file the memorandum for petitioner, assumed that his motions for extension filed on November 29, 2002 would be granted by the court and that he had until December 10, 2002 within which to file the same.  He then failed to ascertain from the records of the court whether his motion had been acted upon. He must have known that in the event that the court would grant the November 29, 2002 motion for extension, he would only have until December 10, 2002 within which to file the Memorandum. He waited until after December 16, 2002 to file the required pleading; by then, the RTC had had enough of petitioner's successive motions for extension and issued the order dismissing the appeal.

It bears stressing that the grant or denial of motions for extension, including the duration thereof, lies within the sound discretion of the court, to be exercised in accordance with the particulars of each case.  Moreover, the movant is not justified in presuming that the extension sought will be granted, or that it will be granted for the length of time sought.  Thus, it is the duty of the movant of extension to exercise due diligence and file her pleading within the extension granted by the court.