Facts:

The case involves a complaint filed by Alfredo San Gabriel (complainant) against Atty. Jonathan T. Sempio (respondent) for alleged professional misconduct and negligence. The complaint was submitted to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) on February 29, 2016. In January 2014, the complainant engaged the respondent’s legal services for the annulment of his marriage, formalized through a Contract of Legal Services, for which he paid the respondent P120,000. This fee covered all necessary expenses until the final decision in the annulment case, known as the Nullity Case. Shortly after the payment, the respondent filed a petition for annulment before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malabon City, Branch 73. However, on July 2, 2015, the RTC dismissed the Nullity Case without prejudice due to the respondent’s failure to comply with a previous court order. Upon learning of this dismissal, the complainant confronted the respondent, who promised to fix the situation by filing a

...

Facts:

Engagement of Services and Payment

• Complainant Alfredo San Gabriel engaged respondent Atty. Jonathan T. Sempio in January 2014 to handle his Nullity Case seeking the annulment of his marriage.
• A Contract of Legal Services was entered into, wherein complainant paid respondent a total of P120,000.00 covering legal fees and all necessary expenses up to the issuance of the decision in the Nullity Case.

Initiation and Handling of the Nullity Case

• After the engagement, respondent duly filed the petition for the nullification of complainant’s marriage before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malabon City, Branch 73.
• Respondent initially acted on his undertaking by filing the requisite petition and later a motion for reconsideration, which resulted in the reinstatement of the case after it had been dismissed for noncompliance with prior court directives.

Alleged Negligence and Subsequent Developments

• Complainant received a copy of the RTC Order dated July 2, 2015, which dismissed the Nullity Case without prejudice due to respondent’s failure to comply with a previous court order.
• Despite assurances from respondent that the issues would be rectified by filing a motion for reconsideration, subsequent follow-ups by complainant yielded no substantial progress.
• Complainant later discovered that respondent had left the country without prior notice, effectively resulting in the archiving of the Nullity Case.

Prior Disciplinary History and Claim of Repetition

• Complainant alleged that respondent had a history of neglecting his clients’ affairs, referencing the case Baens v. Sempio in which the Court previously suspended respondent for similar negligence.
• In his defense, respondent claimed he had informed complainant about his suspension (in the Baens case) and suggested that complainant secure replacement counsel because his depression (stemming from the suspension) hindered his ability to handle the Nullity Case.

IBP Investigation and Findings

• The Investigating Commissioner (IC) for the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) conducted an investigation and, in a report dated June 20, 2017, found respondent administratively liable for violating Canons 15, 17, 18, and Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).
• The IC noted that respondent’s inaction was indefensible given the significant span of seven months between the filing of the petition and his knowledge of his suspension, during which no positive action was taken on the case.
• Furthermore, even if respondent had advised complainant to secure a replacement counsel due to his “depression,” he failed to take affirmative steps to facilitate such replacement.

IBP Resolution

• On May 3, 2018, the IBP Board of Governors adopted the IC’s report and recommendation, ordering respondent’s suspension from the practice of law for a period of two (2) years.

Issue:

Determination of Administrative Liability

• Whether respondent should be held administratively liable for his alleged negligence in handling complainant’s Nullity Case.
• Whether the neglect in progressing the case, despite having secured a significant legal fee and establishing an attorney-client relationship, constitutes a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Adequacy of Respondent’s Defense

• Whether respondent’s claim of “depression” caused by his prior suspension, along with his purported efforts to advise complainant on securing replacement counsel, absolves him from liability.
• Whether the lapse of a seven-month period between critical actions in the case can be justified by the circumstances he presented.

Appropriate Sanction and Monetary Redress

• What should be the imposition of disciplinary sanctions on respondent in view of his repeated negligent acts, especially considering his prior suspension in the Baens case.
• Whether respondent should be ordered to refund a part of the legal fees paid by complainant, and if so, the appropriate amount and accompanying interest.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)