Case: ROSITA TAN, complainant vs. ATTY. JOSE L. LAPAK, respondent. (G.R. No. 93707, January 23, 2001)
FACTS:
The complainant sought the legal services of the respondent regarding
Civil Case No. 5295 for filing the petition for review on certiorari on a Resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA) dismissing complainant’s appeal. However, when the complainant confronted the respondent about the result of the appeal, the latter just told her to wait patiently for an update on the aforementioned motion. When the complainant visited Manila and dropped by the Supreme Court to inquire about her case, she learned that the respondent failed to file the petition, therefore, her appeal got dismissed. The respondent in his Comment said that he learned that the Resolution of CA already became final when he went to the CA to get the certified true copies of the Resolution. Further, the complainant was only able to pay P4,000 instead of the agreed P5,000 lawyer’s fee, and even demanded the money back when she had misgivings and lukewarm feelings in bringing the case to the Supreme Court after the dismissal.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent committed a gross misconduct and
negligence in handling the complainant’s case.
HELD:
Contrary to what the respondent has stated in his Comment, the
Resolution of the CA had not yet attained finality and the Court even granted their motion for extension of time to file the petition for review. Despite this extension, respondent failed to file the petition within the reglementary period. Further, the failure of the complainant to settle the balance of P1,000 of his fee was not sufficient to justify his failure of respondent to comply with his professional obligation which does not depend for compliance on the payment of the lawyer’s fee. Canon 14 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that ‘a lawyer who accepts the cause of a person unable to pay his professional fees shall observe the same standard of conduct governing his relations with paying clients’. The respondent is REPRIMANDED and ORDERED to refund the complainant the amount of P4,000.