Tan v. Lapak
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: This case originated from a complaint filed by Rosita Tan against Atty. Jose L. Lapak for alleged misconduct. The core of the dispute centers on Atty. Lapak's failure to file a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court, despite receiving payment from Ms. Tan and securing an extension of time to file the petition. 2. Procedural History: Ms. Tan's original appeal to the Court of Appeals was dismissed due to the failure of her previous counsel, Atty. Leopoldo E. San Buenaventura, to file an appellant's brief. Subsequently, Ms. Tan engaged Atty. Lapak to pursue further remedies. Atty. Lapak filed a motion for reconsideration with the Court of Appeals, which was denied. He then filed a motion for extension of time to file a petition for review with the Supreme Court, which was granted. However, Atty. Lapak failed to file the petition within the extended period. The case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, which recommended that Atty. Lapak be reprimanded and ordered to restitute P1,000.00 to Ms. Tan. 3. The Petition: The Supreme Court reviewed the findings of the IBP. The Court found that Atty. Lapak committed a breach of professional responsibility by failing to file the petition for review on certiorari within the extended period granted by the Supreme Court. His justifications, including the alleged finality of the Court of Appeals resolution and Ms. Tan's failure to pay the full balance of his fees, were found to be untenable. The Court ordered Atty. Lapak to refund the full amount of P4,000.00 received from Ms. Tan and reprimanded him, warning of more severe sanctions for future offenses.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Atty. Jose L. Lapak committed misconduct by failing to file a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court. Whether respondent is liable for the fees paid by the complainant.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found respondent Atty. Jose L. Lapak guilty of misconduct and ordered him to refund the amount of P4,000.00 to complainant Rosita Tan. He was reprimanded and admonished to exercise greater care and diligence in the performance of his duties.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of misconduct for failure to file a petition for review on certiorari: The Court found that respondent Atty. Lapak committed misconduct. The Court noted that the resolution of the Court of Appeals denying the motion for reconsideration was promulgated on May 2, 1990. Respondent received a copy on May 11, 1990, giving him until May 26, 1990, to file a petition for review. This Court granted him an extension of 30 days from the reglementary period, or until June 25, 1990. Despite this extension, respondent failed to file the petition. His claim that the judgment had become final on May 27, 1990, was contradicted by the fact that this Court granted him an extension, implying the resolution was not yet final. His failure to file within the extended period constituted a breach of Rule 12.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which prohibits a lawyer from letting a period lapse without submitting a pleading or offering an explanation after obtaining extensions. This failure is akin to inexcusable negligence, as established in cases like Mariveles v. Mallari and Re: Santiago F. Marcos, where failure to file a brief despite extensions was considered a blatant violation and inexcusable negligence. On the issue of liability for fees paid: The Court held that respondent is not entitled to the legal fees paid by the complainant because he failed to comply with his professional commitment. The complainant paid P4,000.00 out of an agreed P5,000.00. The Court found that respondent's failure to file the petition was not justified by the complainant's alleged failure to pay the balance, as professional obligations do not solely depend on the payment of fees. Furthermore, respondent's act of receiving P1,000.00 on August 8, 1990, for a petition that was no longer possible to file due to the expired period, demonstrated a lack of candor and honesty. Therefore, it was not just for him to keep the P4,000.00, as he had not rightfully earned it.
Main Doctrine
A lawyer who fails to file a petition for review on certiorari within the reglementary period, despite receiving fees and obtaining an extension of time, commits misconduct and is liable for restitution of the fees paid.