A.C. No. 5174 - ERNESTO M. RAMOS, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. MARIANO A. DAJOYAG, JR..D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

accordingly recommended that he be given a mere reprimand. Thus, the investigating commissioner reasoned: Respondent has failed to show that he exercised that degree of competence and diligence required of him in prosecuting complainants petition for certiorari before the Honorable Supreme Court. His reliance on good faith cannot be credited fully in his favor. Lawyers should not presume that the courts would grant their motion for extension of time to file the required pleading or brief nor expect that the extension that may be granted shall be counted from notice. They should file their brief or pleadings within the extended period requested. Failing in this, they have only themselves to blame if their appeal or case is dismissed (Roxas vs. Court of Appeals, 156 SCRA 252). Neither would the fact that he has not been paid his fees exonerate him from liability. Every case a lawyer accepts deserves his full attention, diligence, skill and competence regardless of its importance and whether he accepts it for a fee or for free. (Santiago, et al. vs. Atty. Amado R. Fojas, A.C. No. 4103, September 7, 1995). [4] We find the investigating commissioners report and recommendation well taken. First. Respondent pleads good faith and excusable neglect of duty. He stresses the fact that he filed the petition for certiorari within the 20-day period of extension that he sought in his second motion for extension and claims that he learned that the period of extension granted in his first motion for extension was inextendible only after the expiration of the two periods of extension that he prayed for. Respondents contentions have no merit. The decision of the National Labor Relations Commission affirming the Labor Arbiters dismissal of complainants claims against his former employers was promulgated on January 22, 1996. Respondent was notified of the decision on February 8, 1996 and he filed a motion for reconsideration within the reglementary period. His motion was denied on March 12, 1996 and respondent was notified thereof on March 25, 1996. On June 25, 1996, the last day of the 90-day period allowed at that time for filing a special civil action for certiorari, [5] he filed with this Court a motion seeking an extension of thirty (30) days for filing the petition for certiorari under Rule 65 on the ground that because of pressure of work he was prevented him from filing the same earlier. On July 25, 1996, the last day of the period he asked for in his first motion for extension, respondent filed a motion praying for another extension of twenty (20) days for filing the petition for certiorari. On the last day of the second period of extension that he asked for, August 14, 1996, respondent finally filed the petition for certiorari. Meanwhile, on July 24, 1996, this Court issued a resolution granting respondents first motion for extension, with a warning that no further extension would be granted. Respondent received a copy of the resolution on August 28,