A.C. No. 7062 - Sambajon vs. Suing

Complainants—Renerio Sambajon, Ronald Sambajon, Crisanto Conos, and Fredilyn Baculbas—filed a complaint before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) seeking the disbarment of Atty. Jose A. Suing.
The complaint was grounded on allegations of deceit, malpractice, and violations of the Lawyer’s Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility.
The dispute arose from labor cases involving unfair labor practice (ULP) and illegal dismissal, consolidated under NLRC proceedings, where backwages were computed and awarded to several complainants.

Dismissed the illegal strike complaint due to lack of merit.
Declared employer-clients guilty of unfair labor practice involving union busting.
Directed respondents to pay computed backwages and other monetary claims, including a detailed computation for each complainant.

A Writ of Execution was issued by the Labor Arbiter once the decision became final and executory.
Subsequently, seven complainants purportedly executed individual Release Waiver and Quitclaim documents on February 27, 2004, which led to the dismissal of their claims before the Labor Arbiter.
Four of these complainants later denied having signed or received consideration for the said documents, prompting the current administrative complaint alleging manipulation and collusion.

It is alleged that respondent, acting in collusion with his clients Johnny and Manuel Rodil, introduced spurious Release Waiver and Quitclaim documents to frustrate the implementation of the Writ of Execution.
Respondent’s presence at the Labor Arbiter’s office on February 27, 2004 was not merely as a passive witness but with an obligation to ensure that the documents were properly executed and that the complainants were correctly identified.
The complainants claimed that despite being present and signing the documents in a group setting, the actual identification and verification procedures were negligent and that respondent relied solely on a past precedent from 1998 without due diligence.

IBP Commissioner Salvador B. Hababag conducted an investigation and, in his Report and Recommendation, faulted respondent for negligence and a lack of diligence in safeguarding client interests.
During the investigation, a detailed hearing took place with oral examinations:

Respondent admitted that he did not ascertain the true identities of the parties executing the Release Waiver and Quitclaim.
Testimonies revealed that respondent’s conduct appeared to influence his client’s answers, as evidenced by the back-and-forth questioning on details such as the delivery of money and the authenticity of the document.

The record includes verbatim exchanges from the hearing, highlighting respondent’s failure to exercise proper vigilance despite knowing his duty as an officer of the court.
The investigation was supported by documentary evidence including minutes of previous proceedings and prior related cases, such as Bantolo v. Castillon, Jr., which set a precedent for appropriate sanctions for similar misconduct.

Whether Atty. Jose A. Suing neglected his duty to diligently verify the identities of the complainants when executing the Release Waiver and Quitclaim documents.
Whether his actions of allegedly manipulating the documents and influencing his client’s testimony constitute malpractice and gross misconduct under the Lawyer’s Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility.
What is the appropriate sanction for the misconduct committed: whether disbarment, reprimand, or a suspension from the practice of law is in order.