Malhabour v. Sarmiento
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Amador Z. Malhabour was hired as an electrician by HY2LB Shipping and Management Services, Inc. for a 12-month contract with a monthly salary of $600.00. After serving for four months and nine days, he was dismissed on August 5, 1993, allegedly due to personnel reduction. Malhabour filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against his employer and its foreign principal. 2. Procedural History: The Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) ruled in favor of Malhabour, ordering the respondents to pay him for the unexpired portion of his contract, unpaid salary, and overtime pay. This decision was affirmed by the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). The Court of Appeals, in its initial decision, affirmed the NLRC's ruling but later modified it, reducing the awarded salary to three months' pay. Malhabour's own motion for reconsideration of this modified decision was denied for being filed late. Subsequently, Malhabour's petition for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court was also denied as untimely. 3. The Petition: This case stems from a disbarment complaint filed by Malhabour against his former counsel, Atty. Alberti R. Sarmiento. The complaint alleges that Atty. Sarmiento, after Malhabour's case was decided by the Court of Appeals, filed a motion for execution with the NLRC without Malhabour's full knowledge or consent, using a Special Power of Attorney that Malhabour denies executing. Atty. Sarmiento received the judgment award of P99,490.00 and deposited it into his personal account, retaining P60,000.00 as alleged attorney's fees based on a 40-60 ratio, leaving a balance of P10,000.00 which he only paid in installments after Malhabour reported the matter to the authorities.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Atty. Alberti R. Sarmiento violated Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Whether respondent's conduct warranted disciplinary action.
Ruling
The Supreme Court sustained the Resolution of the IBP Board of Governors. Respondent Atty. Alberti R. Sarmiento was found guilty of violating Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and was SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year.
Ratio Decidendi
On Whether respondent Atty. Alberti R. Sarmiento violated Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility: The Court found that respondent failed to uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land, and promote respect for law and legal processes, specifically violating Rule 1.01 which prohibits unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct. The records and the IBP's findings indicated that respondent committed deceit by making it appear that complainant executed a Special Power of Attorney authorizing him to file a Motion for Execution and collect the judgment award. Furthermore, after receiving the check from the NLRC, respondent retained the amount, and only made partial payments after complainant reported the matter to the NBI. The Court emphasized that respondent had no right to unilaterally appropriate his lawyer's lien by dividing the money into a 60-40 ratio without informing the complainant beforehand, as this conduct demonstrated a lack of integrity and propriety. The Court stressed that a lawyer is a servant of the law and must be an exemplar, refraining from any act that might lessen public trust in the legal profession. On Whether respondent's conduct warranted disciplinary action: The Court affirmed that respondent's conduct warranted administrative sanction. Citing Lao v. Medel, the Court considered the violation of Canon 1, Rule 1.01 as an act constituting gross misconduct. In line with previous rulings in similar cases involving gross misconduct, the penalty of suspension from the practice of law for one year was deemed sufficient. The Court reiterated that membership in the legal profession is a privilege, and when an attorney is no longer worthy of public trust, it is the Court's duty to withdraw that privilege. Respondent's actions blemished his integrity and that of the legal profession, falling short of the exacting standards expected of a guardian of law and justice.
Main Doctrine
A lawyer who engages in unlawful, dishonest, or deceitful conduct, including the appropriation of client's funds and unilateral assertion of attorney's fees without proper agreement or notice, violates Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and is subject to disciplinary action, including suspension from the practice of law.