BY ATTY. JULIUS GREGORY B. DELGADO 

APOLINARIO C. MARIANO VS. ATTY. RUSSEL A. BARROGA, A.C. NO. 14232 (JULY 8, 2025): LAWYER DISBARRED FOR GROSS NEGLIGENCE AND GROSS INEFFIENCY RESULTING TO THE CRIMINAL CONVICTION OF HIS CLIENT

Respondent Atty. Russel A. Barroga represented complainant Apolinario C. Mariano two cases/counts of Frustrated Homicide before the Regional Trial Court of Tayug, Pangasinan, Branch 51. On October 23, 2019, a Decision was rendered finding complainant Mariano guilty beyond reasonable doubt. On appeal before the Court of Appeals, respondent Atty. Barroga failed to file Appellant’s Brief, hence, the Court of Appeals deemed the appeal abandoned and dismissed. Complainant Mariano approached respondent Atty. Barroga for advice of their next action. Respondent Atty. Barroga told him that he will file a motion for reconsideration if complainant Mariano paid an additional amount of Php30,000.00 in addition to Php70,000.00 he has paid so far.

Complainant Mariano instituted a disbarment case against respondent Atty. Barroga. The Investigating Commissioner recommended for the suspension of respondent Atty. Barroga from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year. The Board of Governors modified the penalty increasing the suspension to one (1) year and six (6) months with stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar act shall be dealt with more severely. 

The Supreme Court, in a per curiam ruling, adopted the factual findings of the Investigating Commissioner and Board of Governors but modified the penalty imposing the supreme penalty of disbarment. The Supreme Court applied the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA) even if the acts of respondent Atty. Barroga were committed before May 29, 2023. 

The Supreme Court restated the competence, diligence, commitment and skill required in handling a client’s cause, to wit: (1) being punctual in all appearances, submissions of pleadings and documents before any court, tribunal, or other government agency and all matters professionally referred by client, including meetings and other commitments; (2) appearing for trial adequately familiar with the law, the facts, and the evidence; (3) explaining the viable options to the client to enable an informed decision regarding the matter; and (4) regularly informing the client of the status and the result of the matter undertaken.

In the instant case, it was found that respondent Atty. Barroga committed the acts imputed against him such as failing to comment to the formal offer of exhibits. Respondent Atty. Barroga also failed to appear during the scheduled hearings for the presentation of evidence, resulting in the waiver of complainant Mariano’s right to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses. To make things worse, the Court held that respondent Atty. Barroga’s negligence extended beyond the trial proceedings when he failed to file the appellant’s brief despite receipt of the notice directing him to do so. 

In imposing the penalty of disbarment, the Supreme Court appreciated the aggravating circumstance of respondent Atty. Barroga blatantly disregarding the lawful orders and processes of the IBP directing him to file an Answer, to attend the mandatory conference, and to file his position paper despite due notice. Finally, aside form imposing the penalty of disbarment, the Court directed respondent Atty. Barroga to return to complainant Mariano the amount of Php20,000.00 with legal interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the finality of the Decision until fully paid.