Case Digest: PAYOD v. ATTY. METILA

LEA P. PAYOD v. ATTY. ROMEO P. METILA
528 SCRA 227 (2007)

A lawyer who accepts a case must give it his full attention, diligence, skill, and competence, and his negligence in connection therewith renders him liable.

Atty. Metila failed to submit important documents to the Court of Appeals (CA) and the serious consequences brought by such act became prejudicial to the case of Lea Payod. Payod said they made sufficient follow ups with Atty. Metila but the latter failed to show up in appointed meetings at the Court. Pagod thereafter charged Atty. Romeo P. Metila for willful neglect and gross misconduct in the discharge of her duties.

Atty. Metila denied the charges and insisted that there was no attorney-client relationship between him and Payod for there was no Special Power of Attorney authorizing Payod’s mother to hire him as a lawyer.

After investigation, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Committee on Bar Discipline, to which the complaint was referred, found Atty. Metila guilty of simple negligence and recommended that he be seriously admonished. The IBP Board of Directors adopted the report and recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner that Atty. Metila be seriously admonished.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the failure of Atty. Metila to submit documents to the CA constitute gross negligence

HELD:

The circumstances attendant to Atty. Metila’s initial handle of Payod’s case do not warrant a finding of gross negligence, or sheer absence of real effort on his part to defend her cause.

Atty. Metila accepted Payod’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, Atty. Metila 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, 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 not acted upon.

Neither do the circumstances warrant a finding that Atty. Metila was motivated by ill-will. In the absence of proof to the contrary, a lawyer enjoys a presumption of good faith in his favor.