Sunteți pe pagina 1din 1

CANON 14

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.

S-ar putea să vă placă și