Samonte v. Jumamil
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Joy T. Samonte engaged the services of respondent Atty. Vivencio V. Jumamil to prepare and file a position paper for her in an illegal dismissal case before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). Complainant paid respondent ₱8,000.00 as attorney's fees. Despite reminders, respondent failed to file the position paper, resulting in an adverse decision against complainant, ordering her to pay ₱633,143.68 to the workers. Procedural History: Complainant filed a disbarment complaint against respondent for acts unbecoming of a lawyer and betrayal of trust. Respondent admitted failing to file the position paper, attributing it to complainant's failure to provide credible witnesses. He also claimed complainant instructed him to prepare an affidavit for a witness, Romeo P. Baol, without translating its contents to Visayan, and that another intended witness refused to testify to "her lies." The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) found respondent administratively liable and recommended a one-year suspension. The IBP Board of Governors adopted this recommendation. The Petition: The case was elevated to the Supreme Court for resolution on whether respondent should be held administratively liable.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Atty. Vivencio V. Jumamil should be held administratively liable for violating the Code of Professional Responsibility and the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice by neglecting a legal matter entrusted to him and preparing/notarizing a perjured affidavit. Whether respondent's failure to file a position paper for his client constitutes neglect of a legal matter entrusted to him. Whether respondent's preparation and notarization of an affidavit from a witness he believed to be perjured constitutes a violation of the rule against doing falsehood.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the findings of the IBP, holding respondent Atty. Vivencio V. Jumamil administratively liable for violating Rule 10.01, Canon 10 and Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Consequently, respondent was suspended from the practice of law for one (1) year. His notarial commission, if existing, was revoked, and he was disqualified from being commissioned as a notary public for two (2) years. He was also sternly warned against repetition of similar offenses.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of respondent's administrative liability for violating the Code of Professional Responsibility and the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice: The Court affirmed the IBP's finding that respondent violated Rule 18.03 of Canon 18 and Rule 10.01 of Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, as well as Section 4(a), Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. This was due to neglecting a legal matter and preparing/notarizing a perjured affidavit. The Court emphasized the duties and responsibilities of a lawyer and notary public. On the issue of respondent's administrative liability for neglecting a legal matter: The Court affirmed the IBP's finding that respondent violated Rule 18.03 of Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. It is undisputed that a lawyer-client relationship was established when respondent accepted the case and received attorney's fees. This relationship imposes a duty on the lawyer to serve the client with competence and diligence, and not to neglect any legal matter entrusted to him. Respondent's admitted failure to file the position paper, which directly led to an adverse judgment against his client, constitutes a clear breach of this duty. The Court emphasized that a lawyer's personal view on the credibility of witnesses or the merits of the case does not justify abandoning the client's cause. Once a lawyer takes on a case, they owe fidelity to the client's interests and must employ all lawful remedies and defenses. The failure to file the position paper left the complainant defenseless and exposed to the execution of the judgment, demonstrating a profound neglect of his professional obligations. On the issue of respondent's violation of the rule against doing falsehood: The Court also agreed with the IBP that respondent violated Rule 10.01 of Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Respondent admitted to preparing and notarizing the affidavit of Romeo P. Baol, an intended witness, despite his belief that the witness was perjured. This act constitutes deliberate falsehood, as it involves consenting to the doing of falsehood in court or misleading the court through artifice. The Lawyer's Oath obliges every lawyer to refrain from doing any falsehood. Furthermore, notarizing a perjured affidavit violates Section 4(a), Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, which prohibits a notary public from performing any notarial act if they know or have good reason to believe that the transaction is unlawful or immoral. The Court underscored the substantive public interest in notarization, which converts private documents into public ones, and the necessity for notaries public to exercise utmost care to maintain public confidence in the integrity of the notarization process.
Main Doctrine
A lawyer who fails to file a position paper for a client, leading to an adverse judgment, and who notarizes an affidavit of a witness despite believing the witness to be perjured, violates the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Rules on Notarial Practice, warranting suspension and revocation of notarial commission.