Case Digest (A.C. No. 13443)
Facts:
The case involves Batangueao Human Resources, Inc. (BHRI), represented by its President Joselito S. Atienza, as the complainant against Atty. Precy C. De Jesus, the respondent. The events leading to the complaint began when BHRI, a recruitment agency, deployed several employees to Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, under a one-year contract approved by the Philippine Overseas Employment Agency (POEA). Before the contract's expiration, these employees were repatriated to the Philippines. Upon their return, they, with the assistance of Atty. De Jesus, filed a case against BHRI before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) seeking payment for the "unexpired portion" of their contracts.
Upon reviewing the Position Paper submitted by the employees, BHRI discovered that the POEA-approved contracts attached to the Position Paper had been altered, specifically the erasure of Clause 16, which allowed for early termination of the contract if the project was compl...
Case Digest (A.C. No. 13443)
Facts:
Background of the Case:
- BatangueAo Human Resources, Inc. (BHRI), a recruitment agency, deployed workers to Abu Dhabi under a one-year contract approved by the Philippine Overseas Employment Agency (POEA).
- Before the contract expired, the workers were repatriated to the Philippines.
Allegations by BHRI:
- The repatriated workers, assisted by Atty. Precy C. De Jesus (respondent), filed a case against BHRI before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) seeking payment for the "unexpired portion" of their contracts.
- BHRI discovered that Clause 16 of the POEA-approved contract, which allowed termination before the contract's expiration, was erased in the Position Paper submitted by the workers.
- BHRI accused the respondent of intentional falsification and demanded an explanation.
Respondent's Admission:
- Respondent admitted that the deletion of Clause 16 was done without her permission and apologized for the oversight.
- She admitted that:
- The Position Papers were outsourced to nonlawyers.
- She did not properly supervise the drafting of the pleadings.
- She met the workers only once for about ten minutes before filing the case.
- She did not charge any fees initially, as all expenses were shouldered by her law office.
IBP Investigation:
- The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) found respondent liable for violating:
- Rules 9.01 and 9.02, Canon 9 (unauthorized practice of law).
- Rule 18.02, Canon 18 (failure to handle legal matters with competence and diligence).
- The IBP recommended a one-year suspension, later reduced to three months due to respondent's remorse and lack of prior offenses.
Issue:
The core issue is whether Atty. Precy C. De Jesus should be held administratively liable for:
- Violating Rules 18.02 and 18.03, Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) for failing to handle the legal matter with competence and diligence.
- Violating Rules 9.01 and 9.02, Canon 9 of the CPR for allowing nonlawyers to engage in the unauthorized practice of law.
- Violating Section 3, Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure for signing a Position Paper without proper scrutiny.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Final Note:
The Court emphasized that lawyers must act with honesty, integrity, and diligence to maintain public confidence in the legal profession. Respondent's suspension serves as a reminder of the high ethical standards required of legal practitioners.