G.R. No. A.C. No. 3944; July 27, 2007
Lea P. Payod, Petitioner, vs. Atty. Romeo P. Metila, Respondent.

FACTS

Lea P. Payod charged Atty. Romeo P. Metila with “willful neglect and gross misconduct” in connection with the Supreme Court’s dismissal of her petition in G.R. No. 102764. The Court dismissed the petition for failure to comply with procedural requirements under Revised Circular No. 1-88 and Circular No. 28-91 (forum shopping certification), noting that her second motion for extension of time was also non-compliant. Payod alleged that despite persistent follow-ups, payments, and willingness to supply materials, Metila provided unreasonable excuses and failed to submit the required documents, causing serious prejudice. Metila denied the charges, claiming Lea’s mother referred the case to him on November 29, 1991, only six days before the appeal period expired, without supplying complete documents. He advised her to find another lawyer to secure records and file the petition, but neither Lea nor her mother communicated until January 21, 1992, forcing him to finance the appeal expenses. He also argued no attorney-client relationship existed due to the lack of a Special Power of Attorney from Lea to her mother. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Committee on Bar Discipline found him guilty of simple negligence, recommending a serious admonishment and mandatory continuing legal education. The IBP Board adopted this recommendation.

ISSUE

Whether Atty. Romeo P. Metila is administratively liable for willful neglect and gross misconduct in handling Lea P. Payod’s appeal.

RULING

The Supreme Court upheld the IBP’s finding and recommendation. Respondent Atty. Metila is guilty of simple negligence, not gross negligence or willful misconduct. He failed to comply with procedural requirements in initiating the appeal, falling short of the standards under the Code of Professional Responsibility, specifically Canon 5 (keeping abreast of legal developments) and Canon 18 (serving clients with competence and diligence). The Court held that the absence of a Special Power of Attorney was immaterial, as Metila actually initiated the appeal, establishing an attorney-client relationship. However, the circumstances—accepting the case six days before the appeal deadline, without complete records or funds, and his efforts in filing two motions for extension and the petition itself—did not warrant a finding of gross negligence or ill-will. Lawyers are presumed to act in good faith absent proof otherwise. Accordingly, Atty. Romeo Metila is SERIOUSLY ADMONISHED with a WARNING that similar future charges will be severely dealt with.