ERNESTO M. RAMOS vs. ATTY. MARIANO A. DAJOYAG, JR.

A.C. No. 5174, February 28, 2002

FACTS:
Ernesto M. Ramos was terminated from work for failure of his lawyer, Atty. Mariano
Dajoyag, to file on time the petition for certiorari, when the Supreme Court dismissed it with
finality. Atty. Dajoyag moved for an extension to file which was granted but the Resolution
granting the 1st extension contained a warning that no further extension would be given. Atty.
Dajoyag, on the other hand, explained that he was not aware of this because when he filed his
motion for last extension for only 20 days, he had not yet received the copy of said resolution.
He further explained that he relied on good faith that his Motion for 1st Extension of 30 days
would be granted without the warning as this was only a first extension; and also that he
requested for a second and last extension of 20 days for which he complied with the filing of the
Petition for Certiorari on the last day of the supposed extended period.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Ramos is guilty of negligence.
RULING:
Yes. Atty. Ramos is guilty of negligence. Rule 12.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility provides: A lawyer shall not, after obtaining extensions of time to file pleadings,
memoranda or briefs, let the period lapse without submitting the same or offering an explanation
for his failure to do so ". Motions for extension are not granted as a matter of right but in the
sound discretion of the court, and lawyers should never presume that their motions for extension
or postponement will be granted or that they will be granted the length of time they pray for. Due
diligence requires that they should conduct a timely inquiry with the division clerks of court of
the action on their motions and, the lack of notice thereof will not make them any less
accountable for their omission. Atty. Mariano A. Dajoyag, Jr. was REPRIMANDED and
admonished henceforth to exercise greater care and diligence in the performance of his duties
towards his clients and the courts and warned that repetition of the same or similar offense will
be more severely dealt with.