SECOND DIVISION
|
LEA
P. PAYOD, Petitioner,
- versus - ATTY. ROMEO P. METILA, Respondent. |
A.C.
No. 3944 Present: QUISUMBING, J., Chairperson, CARPIO,
CARPIO MORALES,
TINGA, and VELASCO, JR., JJ. Promulgated: July 27, 2007 |
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
R E S O L U T I O N
CARPIO MORALES, J.:
Lea P. Payod
(Lea) charges Atty. Romeo P. Metila (respondent) with
“willful neglect and gross misconduct” in connection with this Court’s dismissal
of her petition in G.R. No. 102764, “Lea
P. Payod v. Court of Appeals,” by Resolution
dated February 3, 1992, reading:
Acting
on the pleadings filed in this case, the Court resolved: to DENY: (a) petitioner’s second motion for
extension of time to file petition for review on certiorari, as petitioner’s
first motion for extension was denied in the resolution of December 16, 1991
for failure to comply with the requirement of No. two (2) of Revised Circular
1-88. Moreover, the said second motion
for extension still fails to comply with the same requirement of Revised
Circular 1-88, and (b) the petition itself, for having been filed late and for
failure to comply with requirement No. four (4) of Revised Circular 1-88, and
for failure to submit the certification required under Circular 28-91 on forum
shopping.[1]
Petitioner submits that:
It is difficult to believe that practicing lawyers cannot submit very important documents considered regular pieces of information in their practice of law leading to default with serious consequences prejudicial to the client if the said counsel is not ill motivated or not due to gross misconduct and willful negligence inimical to the best interest of the client.
Together with my mother Mrs. Restituta Peliño and my sister Mrs. Portia P. Velasco, I have found difficulty making follow-up with Atty. Romeo P. Metila for him to comply with the submission of required documents to the Supreme Court because of his unreasonable excuses for non-performance despite our persistent follow-ups, payments of expenses and attorney’s fees, and willingness to supply him with materials and needed facts. More often, we got lame excuse[s] and had his no-shows in appointed meetings at the Supreme Court.[2]
Respondent
denies the charges and gives his side of the case as follows:
The case
was referred to him by Lea’s mother on
He thus
told Lea’s mother that he would only file a motion to stay the running of the
prescriptive period of appeal and advised her to look for another lawyer who
could assist her in getting the complete certified records of the case from the
Court of Appeals and in filing a petition for review with this Court.
Neither Lea
nor her mother communicated with him, however, until
He
concludes there was no attorney-client relationship between him and Lea, there
being no Special Power of Attorney authorizing her mother to hire him as a
lawyer in her behalf.[4]
After
investigation, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Committee on Bar
Discipline, to which the complaint was referred, found respondent guilty of
simple negligence and recommended that he be seriously admonished and required
to undergo three units of Mandatory Continuing Legal Education in Remedial law
for his failure to update himself with the developments in the legal profession
and for the cavalier manner by which he denied the existence of an
attorney-client relationship when one in fact existed.[5]
The IBP
Board of Directors adopted the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating
Commissioner that respondent be seriously admonished.
This
Court upholds the finding and recommendation of the IBP.
In failing
to comply with the requirements in initiating complainant’s appeal before this
Court in G.R. No. 102764 even after his attention to it was called by this
Court, respondent fell short of the standards required in the Canon of
Professional Responsibility for a lawyer to “keep abreast of legal
developments”[6] and
“serve his client with competence and diligence.”[7]
That Lea’s
mother did not have a Special Power of Attorney to hire respondent on Lea’s behalf
is immaterial, given that he actually initiated the appeal, albeit
unsuccessfully.
It need
not be underlined that a lawyer who accepts a case must give it his full
attention, diligence, skill, and competence,[8]
and his negligence in connection therewith renders him liable.[9]
The
circumstances attendant to respondent’s initial handle of
Lea’s case do not warrant a finding of gross negligence, or sheer
absence of real effort on his part to defend her cause.[10]
Respondent
accepted Lea’s case upon her mother’s insistence, with only six days for him to
file a petition for review before this Court, and without her furnishing him
with complete records, not to mention money, for the reproduction of the needed
documents. Despite these constraints, respondent
exerted efforts, albeit lacking in care, to defend his client’s cause by filing
two motions for extension of time to file petition. And he in fact filed the petition within the
time he requested,[11]
thus complying with the guideline of this Court that lawyers should at least
file their pleadings within the extended period requested should their motions
for extension of time to file a pleading be unacted
upon.[12]
Neither
do the circumstances warrant a finding that respondent was motivated by
ill-will. In the absence of proof to the
contrary, a lawyer enjoys a presumption of good faith in his favor.[13]
WHEREFORE, respondent, Atty. Romeo Metila, is SERIOUSLY ADMONISHED with WARNING
that similar charges will be severely dealt with.
SO ORDERED.
CONCHITA
CARPIO MORALES
Associate
Justice
WE CONCUR:
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
Chairperson
|
ANTONIO T. CARPIO Associate
Justice |
DANTE O. TINGA Associate Justice |
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate
Justice
[1] Rollo¸
Vol. 1, p. 15.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6] Canon 5, Code of Professional Responsibility.
[7] Canon 18, Code of Professional Responsibility.
[8] Vide
[9] Canon 18, Rule 18.03, Code of Professional Responsibility.
[10] Vide
Salonga v. Court of Appeals, 336 Phil.
514, 527 (1997).
[11] In his Second Motion for Extension of Time
to File Petition, Atty. Metila prayed for “an
extension of 15 days from January 4, 1992 or up to January 19, 1992 within
which to file [the] petition,” and the petition was filed on January 17,
1992. Rollo, pp. 215-216.
[12] Vide
Roxas v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-76549,
[13] Vide
Maligaya v. Doronila,
Jr., A.C. No. 6198,