A.M. No. 1664. March 30, 1979. DOMINGA ROQUE and JOSE G. ZAPLAN, complainants, vs. MAGTANGGOL C. GUNIGUNDO, respondent.
FACTS

Respondent Atty. Magtanggol C. Gunigundo was counsel for plaintiffs in a land recovery case. On July 23, 1974, he received a copy of the trial court’s order dismissing the case. The last day of the 30-day reglementary period to file a motion for reconsideration or appeal was August 22. On that final day, through an associate, he filed a motion for a 15-day extension, which was granted. He failed to file the motion within this extension. Instead, on the last day of the first extension, he sought a second extension by registered mail, and later a third, finally mailing his motion for reconsideration on September 18. The trial court denied the second and third motions, ruling the dismissal order was already final, and also denied his motion for reconsideration of those denials. His subsequent petition to the Court of Appeals was dismissed.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Atty. Gunigundo is administratively liable for gross negligence in handling his clients’ case, specifically for failing to seasonably file a motion for reconsideration or perfect an appeal.

RULING

Yes, respondent exhibited negligence warranting an admonition, though not disbarment. The Court found his explanations—client indecision, lack of funds, and a co-plaintiff’s death—insufficient to exculpate him. His procedural handling demonstrated a lack of competence and diligence. Critically, filing motions for extension on the very last day via registered mail gave the court no time to act before the sought periods expired. Furthermore, the legal logic established that a motion to extend the period for filing a motion for reconsideration is not authorized, as the 30-day period for appeal (which is also the period for such a motion) is generally non-extendable. The Court reasoned that preparing a motion for reconsideration should not consume excessive time since counsel is already familiar with the tried case. In contrast, extensions for filing a record on appeal may be allowed due to potential volume or other pressing matters. Respondent could have preserved his clients’ rights by filing the motion within the original period or properly withdrawing. However, considering the complainants’ subsequent affidavit of desistance affirming he was not negligent and the Court’s observation that the dismissed case appeared meritoriously decided on laches and prior judgment, thus not clearly damaging the clients, drastic discipline was unwarranted. He was admonished to exercise greater care.