Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=49731:ac-3944-2007&amp;catid=1494&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 08:38:59+00:00

Document:
LEA P. PAYOD, Petitioner, v. ATTY. ROMEO P. METILA, Respondent.
It is difficult to believe that practicing lawyers cannot submit very important documents considered regular pieces of information in their practice of law leading to default with serious consequences prejudicial to the client if the said counsel is not ill motivated or not due to gross misconduct and willful negligence inimical to the best interest of the client.
He thus told Lea's mother that he would only file a motion to stay the running of the prescriptive period of appeal and advised her to look for another lawyer who could assist her in getting the complete certified records of the case from the Court of Appeals and in filing a Petition for Review with this Court.
Neither Lea nor her mother communicated with him, however, until January 21, 1992, forcing him to finance and defray all the expenses for the initiation of the appeal.
The IBP Board of Directors adopted the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner that respondent be seriously admonished.
This Court upholds the finding and recommendation of the IBP.
That Lea's mother did not have a Special Power of Attorney to hire respondent on Lea's behalf is immaterial, given that he actually initiated the appeal, albeit unsuccessfully.
WHEREFORE, respondent, Atty. Romeo Metila, is SERIOUSLY ADMONISHED with WARNING that similar charges will be severely dealt with.
1 Rollo' Vol. 1, p. 15.
6 Canon 5, Code of Professional Responsibility.
7 Canon 18, Code of Professional Responsibility.
8 Vide Santiago v. Fojas, Adm. Case No. 4103, September 7, 1995, 248 SCRA 68, 75.
9 Canon 18, Rule 18.03, Code of Professional Responsibility.
10 Vide Salonga v. Court of Appeals, 336 Phil. 514, 527 (1997).
11 In his Second Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition, Atty. Metila prayed for "an extension of 15 days from January 4, 1992 or up to January 19, 1992 within which to file [the] petition," and the petition was filed on January 17, 1992. Rollo, pp. 215-216.
12 Vide Roxas v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-76549, December 10, 1987, 156 SCRA 252, 256-257; Antonio v. Jacinto, 121 Phil. 1128, 1131 (1965).
13 Vide Maligaya v. Doronila, Jr., A.C. No. 6198, September 15, 2006, 502 SCRA 1, 8.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.