Case Summary (A.C. No. 11668)
Petition and Allegations
Complainant filed a complaint with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) on March 15, 2013, seeking the disbarment of respondent for acts unbecoming of a lawyer and betrayal of trust. She alleged that although she paid respondent P8,000.00 to prepare and file her position paper for the NLRC case, he failed to file the same despite reminders. Consequently, the Labor Arbiter rendered an unfavorable decision holding her liable for P633,143.68.
Respondent’s Defense
Respondent admitted failing to file the position paper but attributed this omission to complainant’s inability to provide credible witnesses. He claimed complainant instructed him to prepare a witness affidavit that was misleading and that another intended witness refused to testify, thus alleging the complainant engaged in deceit, and sought dismissal of the complaint against him.
IBP Commission Findings and Recommendation
The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline found respondent administratively liable for violating Rule 10.01, Canon 10 (Candor to the Court), and Rule 18.03, Canon 18 (Competence and Diligence) of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR), as well as provisions of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. The Commission recommended a one-year suspension from the practice of law. The IBP Board of Governors subsequently approved this recommendation.
Legal Issue
The central issue is whether respondent should be held administratively liable for professional misconduct.
Lawyer-Client Relationship and Duty of Competence
It is undisputed that a lawyer-client relationship existed once respondent undertook the case and received legal fees. Under the 1987 Philippine Constitution and the CPR, a lawyer is obligated to serve clients with competence, diligence, and fidelity. Neglecting entrusted legal matters renders a lawyer liable. Respondent’s admitted failure to file the position paper constituted neglect of the legal matter entrusted to him, which prejudiced his client.
Lack of Valid Justification for Neglect
Respondent’s justification—complainant’s failure to produce credible witnesses—does not excuse his neglect. Upon acceptation of a case, a lawyer must zealously and competently advocate for the client’s interests, presenting every lawful defense or remedy regardless of personal views or client behavior.
Violation of Candor Rule (Rule 10.01, Canon 10)
Respondent’s preparation and notarization of an affidavit he believed to be perjurious violated his duty of candor. The CPR expressly requires lawyers to refrain from falsehoods and not to mislead the court. The law places a high premium on honesty, integrity, and good faith in lawyers’ conduct both in and out of court.
Violation of Notarial Practice Rules
Notarization of a knowingly false affidavit also breached the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, which prohibit a notary public from performing notarizations when the document involves unlawful or immoral transactions. Notarization transforms a private document into one entitled to full faith and credit; thus, any abuse of this function undermines public confidence and the integrity of legal processes.
Penalty Assessment
Consistent with jurisprudence, the Court finds that respondent’s admitted neglect warrants administrative sanction. The IBP’s recommended penalty of one-year suspension aligns with prior cases involving failure to
...continue reading
Case Syllabus (A.C. No. 11668)
Background and Nature of the Complaint
- Complainant Joy T. Samonte filed a complaint on March 15, 2013, before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) against respondent Atty. Vivencio V. Jumamil, seeking his disbarment for acts unbecoming of a lawyer and betrayal of trust.
- The complaint stemmed from an illegal dismissal case (NLRC Case RAB-XI-10-00586-12) filed by four individuals claiming to be workers in complainant’s banana plantation.
- Complainant engaged respondent’s legal services to prepare a position paper before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and paid him P8,000.00 as attorney’s fees.
- Despite repeated reminders, respondent failed to file the position paper, resulting in the Labor Arbiter rendering a decision in favor of the workers, holding complainant liable for P633,143.68.
- When confronted, respondent insensitively advised complainant to sell her farm to pay the workers.
- Due to respondent’s negligence, complainant was left without remedy, prompting her complaint for professional misconduct.
Respondent's Answer and Defense
- Respondent admitted failure to file the position paper.
- He contended that complainant failed to produce credible witnesses.
- Respondent disclosed that complainant instructed him to prepare an affidavit for one Romeo P. Baol, intended as a witness, but with instructions to prevent Romeo from understanding the affidavit by translation into Visayan dialect.
- Another intended witness, complainant’s uncle, Nicasio Ticong, refused to execute an affidavit or testify.
- Respondent asserted complainant’s deceit and requested dismissal of the complaint for lack of merit.
Findings and Recommendation of the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD)
- The IBP-CBD found respondent administratively liable.
- It recommended a one-year suspension for violations of Rule 10.01, Canon 10, and Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) and breach of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.
- The IBP Board of Governors approved the recommendation, finding it supported by evidence and law.
Legal Issue Presented to the Supreme Court
- The sole issue was whether respondent should be held administratively liable for his professional misconduct and related violations.
Supreme Court's Analysis on the Lawyer-Client Relationship and Duties
- The Court emphasized that the lawyer-client relationshi