LEA P. PAYOD, PETITIONER, VS. ATTY. ROMEO P. METILA, RESPONDENT.

Payod versus Metila

The Case

This is an administrative case for disbarment or disciplinary action. Lea P. Payod charges Atty. Romeo P. Metila with willful neglect and gross misconduct, arising from the dismissal of her petition for review by the Supreme Court because it was filed late and failed to comply with the Court's circulars. The case matters because it fixes the line between simple negligence, which merits admonition, and gross negligence, which merits a heavier sanction, and because it settles that a lawyer who accepts a case cannot later deny the attorney-client relationship merely because the relative who hired him had no special power of attorney.

Procedural History

The complaint was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Committee on Bar Discipline. After investigation, the Committee found the 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. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines Board of Directors adopted the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner that the respondent be seriously admonished. The matter then came before the Supreme Court, which upheld the finding and recommendation of the Integrated Bar.

Facts

Lea Payod's case was referred to Atty. Metila by her mother on November 29, 1991, only six days before the period to perfect an appeal to the Supreme Court expired. The mother gave him no document bearing on the case other than the Court of Appeals resolution denying Lea's motion for reconsideration. The respondent told the mother that he would file only a motion to stay the running of the prescriptive period of appeal, and advised her to look for another lawyer who could secure the complete certified records and file the petition for review.

Neither Lea nor her mother communicated with him until January 21, 1992, and the respondent financed and defrayed the expenses for initiating the appeal. He filed two motions for extension of time to file the petition. The Supreme Court denied both motions and denied the petition itself, because it was filed late, because it failed to comply with the requirement of Revised Circular 1-88, and because it failed to submit the certification against forum shopping required under Circular 28-91.

Lea then charged the respondent with willful neglect and gross misconduct, saying her family had difficulty following up with him and received lame excuses. The respondent denied the charges and claimed there was no attorney-client relationship between him and Lea, there being no special power of attorney authorizing her mother to hire him.

Issues

• Whether or not an attorney-client relationship existed between the respondent and the complainant despite the absence of a special power of attorney from the mother who engaged him.
• Whether or not the respondent is guilty of simple negligence, rather than gross negligence or willful misconduct, for failing to comply with the requirements for initiating the appeal.
• Whether or not the penalty of serious admonition is the proper sanction.

Applicable Provisions

Canon 5 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides:

A lawyer shall keep abreast of legal developments, participate in continuing legal education programs, support efforts to achieve high standards in law schools as well as in the practical training of law students and assist in disseminating information regarding the law and jurisprudence.

The respondent's failure to comply with the Court's circulars shows he did not keep abreast of legal developments.

Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides:

A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence.

This is the standard against which the respondent's handling of the appeal is measured.

Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides:

A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.

This is the basis for holding the respondent liable for his negligence.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the absence of a special power of attorney is immaterial, given that the respondent actually initiated the appeal, albeit unsuccessfully. A lawyer who accepts a case must give it his full attention, diligence, skill, and competence, and his negligence renders him liable.

On the second issue, the Court found the respondent short of the standards of the Code of Professional Responsibility for failing to comply with the requirements in initiating the appeal even after his attention was called by the Court. But the circumstances did not warrant a finding of gross negligence, or sheer absence of real effort to defend the cause. The respondent accepted the case upon the mother's insistence with only six days to file the petition, without complete records and without money for reproduction. Despite these constraints, he exerted efforts, though lacking in care, by filing two motions for extension, and he filed the petition within the time he requested. Neither was he motivated by ill will, for in the absence of proof to the contrary, a lawyer enjoys a presumption of good faith.

On the third issue, the Court upheld the finding and recommendation of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and imposed serious admonition.

Doctrine

A lawyer who accepts a case must give it his full attention, diligence, skill, and competence; his negligence renders him liable under Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The existence of the attorney-client relationship does not depend on a special power of attorney where the lawyer in fact accepted and handled the case. Failure to comply with the requirements for initiating an appeal, even after the Court calls attention to it, violates Canon 5 on keeping abreast of legal developments and Canon 18 on competence and diligence. But where the lawyer exerted real effort despite constraints of time and records, the negligence is simple, not gross, and good faith is presumed in his favor.

Disposition

The Court seriously admonished Atty. Romeo Metila, with a warning that similar charges will be severely dealt with.

Remember This

Memorize the line: a lawyer who accepts a case must give it his full attention, diligence, skill, and competence, and the lack of a special power of attorney is immaterial when he actually handled the case. Examiners use this case to test the distinction between simple and gross negligence in disciplinary cases, and the presumption of good faith in favor of a lawyer.