Scribd
Upload
79 views2 pages

En Banc (A.C. No. 12423, March 26, 2019) Alfredo San Gabriel, Complainant, vs. Atty. Jonathan T. Sempio, Respondent. Decision Perlas-Bernabe, J.

The complaint alleges that respondent lawyer Jonathan Sempio neglected his duties in handling complainant Alfredo San Gabriel's nullity case, which led to the case's dismissal. Sempio was paid 120,000 pesos to represent San Gabriel but failed to comply with a court order, causing the case to be dismissed without prejudice. Sempio also left the country without informing San Gabriel. The IBP investigation found that Sempio violated legal ethics and recommended a 2-year suspension. The IBP Board of Governors adopted this recommendation, finding that Sempio's actions constituted negligence and that he had not learned from a prior case where he was also found negligent.

Uploaded by

Juan Tagadownload
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
79 views2 pages

En Banc (A.C. No. 12423, March 26, 2019) Alfredo San Gabriel, Complainant, vs. Atty. Jonathan T. Sempio, Respondent. Decision Perlas-Bernabe, J.

The complaint alleges that respondent lawyer Jonathan Sempio neglected his duties in handling complainant Alfredo San Gabriel's nullity case, which led to the case's dismissal. Sempio was paid 120,000 pesos to represent San Gabriel but failed to comply with a court order, causing the case to be dismissed without prejudice. Sempio also left the country without informing San Gabriel. The IBP investigation found that Sempio violated legal ethics and recommended a 2-year suspension. The IBP Board of Governors adopted this recommendation, finding that Sempio's actions constituted negligence and that he had not learned from a prior case where he was also found negligent.

Uploaded by

Juan Tagadownload
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

EN BANC

[ A.C. No. 12423, March 26, 2019 ]


ALFREDO SAN GABRIEL, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. JONATHAN T. SEMPIO, RESPONDENT.

DECISION

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:

For the Court's resolution is a complaint [1] dated February 29, 2016 filed before the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP) – Commission on Bar Discipline by complainant Alfredo San Gabriel (complainant)
against respondent Atty. Jonathan T. Sempio (respondent) praying that the latter be disbarred for his
alleged unprofessional conduct.
The Facts

Complainant alleged that sometime in January 2014, he engaged the services of respondent to handle
the annulment of his marriage (Nullity Case). In connection therewith and by virtue of the Contract of
Legal Services[2] they entered into, complainant paid respondent the amount of
P120,000.00[3] representing the latter's legal fees inclusive of all necessary and legal expenses up to the
release of the decision, in said case. Shortly thereafter, respondent filed a petition [4] praying for the
nullification of complainant's marriage before the Regional Trial Court of Malabon City, Branch 73 (RTC).
[5]

More than a year later, complainant was surprised when he received a copy of the RTC's Order [6] dated
July 2, 2015 dismissing the Nullity Case without prejudice for respondent's failure to comply with a
previous court order.[7] Upon confronting respondent, complainant was promised that the situation will
be rectified by filing the necessary motion, i.e.,  a motion for reconsideration.[8] After the
reinstatement[9] of the Nullity Case, complainant made several follow-ups with respondent to no avail.
Soon thereafter, complainant found out that respondent had left the country without informing him,
resulting in the archiving of the Nullity Case. [10] As complainant felt that respondent had abandoned the
Nullity Case, he filed the instant complaint. He further claimed that respondent already has a track
record of unduly neglecting his clients' affairs, as seen in the case entitled Baens v.
Sempio[11] (Baens)  where the Court suspended him for such negligence. [12]

In his defense,[13] respondent denied neglecting complainant's Nullity Case, maintaining that he was
unable to handle the same due to his suspension from the practice of law in the case
of Baens.  Respondent then claimed that after learning of his suspension, he met with complainant to
inform him of his predicament. Respondent then asked complainant to look for a replacement counsel
as he intended to go abroad to ease his "depression" on account of his suspension. Finally, respondent
averred that he proceeded with his overseas trip, thinking that he and complainant had already agreed
that the latter would just get another lawyer to handle his Nullity Case.[14]
The IBP's Report and Recommendation

In a report and recommendation[15] dated June 20, 2017, the Investigating Commissioner (IC) found
respondent administratively liable for violating Canons 15, 17, 18, and Rule 18.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility (CPR), and accordingly, recommended that he be suspended from the
practice of law for a period of two (2) years. [16]
The IC found that respondent was negligent in handling complainant's legal affairs which led to the
incidents that transpired in the latter's Nullity Case. The IC did not find tenable respondent's excuse that
he failed to act on the Nullity Case due to his suspension by the Court, considering that:  (a)  there was a
seven (7)-month span between the time respondent filed the petition in the Nullity Case and the time he
learned of his suspension; and (b)  he did not make any positive action to further his client's interests
during that time. Further, the IC opined that assuming respondent indeed got "depressed" upon
learning of his suspension and asked complainant to look for a replacement counsel, he still failed to
take the necessary steps to effectuate such replacement. Finally, the IC opined that respondent has not
learned his lesson from his previous administrative case, i.e.,  in Baens,  observing that the negligent acts
he committed therein were repeated in this case. [17]

In a Resolution[18] dated May 3, 2018, the IBP Board of Governors adopted the IC's report and
recommendation that respondent be meted the penalty of suspension from the practice of law for a
period of two (2) years.
The Issue Before the Court

You might also like