G.R. No. 93707 , January 23, 2001
Rosita Tan vs. Atty. Jose L. Lapak

FACTS

Complainant Rosita Tan engaged the services of respondent Atty. Jose L. Lapak to file a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court, following the Court of Appeals’ dismissal of her appeal for failure to file an appellant’s brief. Tan alleged she paid Lapak P4,000 and that the Supreme Court had granted him an extension to file the petition. Despite this, Lapak failed to file the petition, causing her appeal to lapse. In her letter-complaint to the Chief Justice, Tan, pleading her lack of legal knowledge and financial means, detailed her reliance on Lapak’s assurances and her subsequent discovery of his inaction.
Respondent Lapak denied the allegations. He claimed his engagement was initially only to seek reconsideration from the Court of Appeals, which he did, but the motion was denied. He asserted that he then advised Tan of the need to elevate the matter to the Supreme Court. He admitted receiving partial payments totaling P4,000 but contended that Tan became apathetic and failed to pay the full agreed amount. He further stated that upon checking, he discovered an Entry of Judgment had been made, rendering the resolution final.

ISSUE

Whether Atty. Jose L. Lapak committed professional misconduct warranting disciplinary action.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court found respondent Atty. Lapak guilty of negligence and violation of his professional duties. The Court rejected his defense that his engagement was limited. The records showed he had sought and was granted a 30-day extension from the Supreme Court to file the petition for review, which constituted a judicial admission that he had accepted the undertaking to file said petition. By securing this extension, he formally assumed the responsibility to file the petition within the granted period.
The legal logic is clear: once a lawyer agrees to take a client’s cause, he owes entire devotion, competence, and diligence. His duty to serve the client with wholehearted fidelity does not depend on the full payment of fees. Lapak’s failure to file the petition, after having taken concrete steps like securing an extension, constituted a breach of Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which mandates a lawyer to serve a client with competence and diligence. His excuse regarding the unpaid balance is untenable, as the payment of attorney’s fees is not a condition precedent for the performance of an assumed duty. Consequently, for his negligence, Atty. Lapak was reprimanded and ordered to refund the P4,000 to complainant, with a warning against repeating the offense.