Samonte v.
Abellana,
On February 16, 1990, Henry E. Samonte(complainant) brought this administrative complaint
against respondent Atty. Gines N. AbelJana who had represented him as the plaintiff in the
Regional Trial Court in Cebu City. In the administrative complaint, Samonte enumerated the
serious acts of professional misconduct by Atty. Abellana,
Falsification of documents, when Atty. Abellana made it appear that he had filed Civil Case on
June 10, 1988, conformably with their agreement, although the complaint was actually filed on
June 14, 1988
Dereliction of duty, when Atty. Abellana failed to: (a) file the reply vis-à-vis the answer with
counterclaim, with his omission having delayed the pre-trial of the case; (b) inform the trial
court beforehand that Samonte could not be available on a scheduled hearing, thereby incurring
for the plaintiff’s side an unexplained absence detrimental to Samonte as the plaintiff; and (c)
submit an exhibit required by the trial judge, only to eventually submit it three months later;
Gross negligence and tardiness in attending the scheduled hearings;
Dishonesty for not issuing official receipts for every cash payments made by Samonte for his
court appearances and his acceptance of the case.
Atty. Abellana denied the charge of falsification of documents, clarifying that the actual filing of
the complaint could be made only on June 14, 1988 instead of on June 10, 1988 because
Samonte had not given enough money to cover the filing fees and other charges
He asserted that the charge of dereliction of duty was baseless, because he had filed the reply
on December 2, 1988 after receiving the answer with counterclaim of the defendants on August
2, 1988, attaching as proof the copies of the and that it was the RTC, not him, who had
scheduled the pre-trial on January 16, 1989.
For his non-attendance, he explained that although he had informed the RTC of his having been
either stranded in another province, or having attended the arraignment of another client in
another court, the presiding judge had opted not to await his arrival in the courtroom.
Additional charges of falsification of documents, dereliction of duty and dishonesty was fled by
Samonte. Samonte noted in the letter that the reply attached to the comment of Atty. Abellana
was not authentic based on the categorical statement of the Branch Clerk of Court of Branch 5
of the RTC in Cebu City to the effect that no such reply had been filed in behalf of Samonte; and
that the rubber stamp affixed on the reply supposedly filed by Atty. Abellana in Samonte’s
behalf was not also the official rubber stamp of Branch 5.
IBP PROCEEDINGS
On May 1, 2008, the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline found Atty. Abellananegligent in handling
certain aspects of his client’s case. The IBP Commission on BarDiscipline recommended the
disbarment of Atty. Abellana.
On June 5, 2008, the IBP Board of Governors, albeit adopting the findings of the IBPInvestigating
Commissioner, suspended Atty. Abellana from the practice of law for one year.
Issue:
Whether Atty. Abellana is guilty of acts complained of. (YES)
RULING:
Atty. Abellana abjectly failed the expectations of honesty, integrity and trustworthiness in
his dealings with Samonte as the client, and with the RTC as the trial court.
He resorted to outright falsification by superimposing "0" on "4" in order to mislead
Samonte into believing that he had already filed the complaint in court on June 10,1988 as
promised, instead of on June 14, 1988, the date when he had actually done so.
His explanation that Samonte was himself the cause of the belated filing on account of his
inability to remit the correct amount of filing fees and his acceptance fees, as agreed upon,
did not excuse the falsification, because his falsification was not rendered less dishonest and
less corrupt by whatever reasons for filing at the later date.
He ought to remember that honesty and integrity were of far greater value for him as a
member of the Law Profession than his transactions with his client.
