FIRST DIVISION

A.C. No. 11668, July 17, 2017

JOY T. SAMONTE, Complainant, v. ATTY. VIVENCIO V. JUMAMIL, Respondent.

RESOLUTION

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:

For the Court's resolution is a Complaint1 dated March 15, 2013, filed before the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), by complainant Joy T. Samonte (complainant)
against respondent Atty. Vivencio V. Jumamil (respondent), praying that the latter be
disbarred for acts unbecoming of a lawyer and betrayal of trust.

The Facts

Complainant alleged that sometime in October 2012, she received summons from the
National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), Regional Arbitration Branch XI, Davao
City, relative to an illegal dismissal case, i.e.,  NLRC Case RAB-XI-10-00586-12, filed by
four (4) persons claiming to be workers in her small banana plantation.2 Consequently,
complainant engaged the services of respondent to prepare her position paper, and
paid him the amount of P8,000.003 as attorney's fees.4 Despite constantly reminding
respondent of the deadline for the submission of her position paper, complainant
discovered that he still failed to file the same.5 As such, on January 25, 2013, the Labor
Arbiter rendered a Decision6 based on the evidence on record, whereby complainant
was held liable to the workers in the total amount of P633,143.68.7 When complainant
confronted respondent about the said ruling, the latter casually told her to just sell her
farm to pay the farm workers.8 Because of respondent's neglect, complainant claimed
that she was left defenseless and without any remedy to protect her interests against
the execution of the foregoing judgment;9 hence, she filed the instant complaint.

In an Order10 dated March 26, 2013, the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD)
directed respondent to submit his Answer to the complaint.

In his Answer11 dated April 19, 2013, respondent admitted that he indeed failed to file a
position paper on behalf of complainant. However, he maintained that said omission
was due to complainant's failure to adduce credible witnesses to testify in her favor. In
this relation, respondent averred that complainant instructed her to prepare
an Affidavit12 for one Romeo P. Baol (Romeo), who was intended to be her
witness; nevertheless, respondent was instructed that the contents of
Romeo's affidavit were not to be interpreted in the Visayan dialect so that the
latter would not know what he would be testifying on. Respondent added that
complainant's uncle, Nicasio Ticong, who was also an intended witness, refused to
execute an affidavit and testify to her lies. Thus, it was complainant who was deceitful
in her conduct and that the complaint against him should be dismissed for lack of
merit.13

The IBP's Report and Recommendation

In its Report and Recommendation14 dated March 14, 2014, the IBP-CBD found
respondent administratively liable and, accordingly, recommended that he be
suspended from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year. Essentially, the IBP-
CBD found respondent guilty of violating Rule 10.01, Canon 10, and Rule 18.03, Canon
18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR), as well as the 2004 Rules on
Notarial Practice.15

In a Resolution16 dated December 13, 2014, the IBP Board of Governors adopted and
approved the aforesaid Report and Recommendation, finding the same to be fully
supported by the evidence on record and the applicable laws and rules.

The Issue Before the Court

The sole issue in this case is whether or not respondent should be held administratively
liable.

The Court's Ruling

The Court concurs with and affirms the findings of the IBP, with modification, however,
as to the penalty in order to account for his breach of the rules on notarial practice.

The relationship between a lawyer and his client is one imbued with utmost trust and
confidence. In this regard, clients are led to expect that lawyers would be ever-mindful
of their cause, and accordingly, exercise the required degree of diligence in handling
their affairs. Accordingly, lawyers are required to maintain, at all times, a high standard
of legal proficiency, and to devote their full attention, skill, and competence to their
cases, regardless of their importance, and whether they accept them for a fee or for
free.17 To this end, lawyers are enjoined to employ only fair and honest means to attain
lawful objectives.18 These principles are embodied in Rule 10.01 of Canon 10 and Rule
18.03 of Canon 18 of the CPR, which respectively read as follows:

CANON 10 – A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND GOOD FAITH TO THE COURT.

Rule 10.01 – A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in
court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the Court to be misled by any artifice.

CANON 18 – A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH COMPETENCE AND

DILIGENCE.

Rule 18.03 – A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his
negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.

In this case, it is undisputed that a lawyer-client relationship was forged between

complainant and respondent when the latter agreed to file a position paper on her
behalf before the NLRC and, in connection therewith, received the amount of P8,000.00
from complainant as payment for his services. Case law instructs that a lawyer-client
relationship commences when a lawyer signifies his agreement to handle a client's case
and accepts money representing legal fees from the latter,19 as in this case. From then
on, as the CPR provides, a lawyer is duty-bound to "serve his client with competence
and diligence," and in such regard, "not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him."

However, it is fairly apparent that respondent breached this duty when he admittedly
failed to file the necessary position paper before the NLRC, which had, in fact, resulted
into an adverse ruling against his client, i.e.,  herein complainant. To be sure, it is of no
moment that complainant purportedly failed to produce any credible witnesses in
support of her position paper; clearly, this is not a valid justification for respondent to
completely abandon his client's cause. By voluntarily taking up complainant's case,
respondent gave his unqualified commitment to advance and defend the latter's
interest therein. Verily, he owes fidelity to such cause and must be mindful of the trust
and confidence reposed in him.20 In Abay v. Montesino,21 it was explained that
regardless of a lawyer's personal view, the latter must still present every remedy or
defense within the authority of the law to support his client's cause:

Once a lawyer agrees to take up the cause of a client, the lawyer owes fidelity to such
cause and must always be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him. He must
serve the client with competence and diligence, and champion the latter's cause with
wholehearted fidelity, care, and devotion. Otherwise stated, he owes entire devotion to
the interest of the client, warm zeal in the maintenance and defense of his client's
rights, and the exertion of his utmost learning and ability to the end that nothing be
taken or withheld from his client, save by the rules of law, legally applied. This simply
means that his client is entitled to the benefit of any and every remedy and
defense that is authorized by the law of the land and he may expect his lawyer
to assert every such remedy or defense. If much is demanded from an attorney, it
is because the entrusted privilege to practice law carries with it the correlative duties
not only to the client but also to the court, to the bar, and to the public. A lawyer who
performs his duty with diligence and candor not only protects the interest of his client;
he also serves the ends of justice, does honor to the bar, and helps maintain the
respect of the community to the legal profession.22 (Emphasis and underscoring
supplied)

In light of the foregoing, the Court therefore agrees with the IBP that respondent
should be held administratively liable for violation of Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the CPR.

Likewise, the IBP correctly found that respondent violated Rule 10.01, Canon
10 of the CPR. Records show that he indeed indulged in deliberate falsehood
when he admittedly prepared23 and notarized24 the affidavit of complainant's
intended witness, Romeo, despite his belief that Romeo was a perjured
witness. In Spouses Umaguing v. De Vera,25 the Court highlighted the oath undertaken
by every lawyer to not only obey the laws of the land, but also to refrain from doing
any falsehood, viz.:

The Lawyer's Oath enjoins every lawyer not only to obey the laws of the land but
also to refrain from doing any falsehood in or out of court or from consenting
to the doing of any in court, and to conduct himself according to the best of his
knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity to the courts as well as to his
clients. Every lawyer is a servant of the law, and has to observe and maintain the rule
of law as well as be an exemplar worthy of emulation by others. It is by no means a
coincidence, therefore, that the core values of honesty, integrity, and trustworthiness
are emphatically reiterated by the Code of Professional Responsibility. In this
light, Rule 10.01, Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides
that "[a] lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in
Court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the Court to be misled by any
artifice."26 (Emphases supplied)

Notably, the notarization of a perjured affidavit also constituted a violation of the 2004
Rules on Notarial Practice. Section 4 (a), Rule IV thereof pertinently provides:

SEC. 4. Refusal to Notarize. – A notary public shall not perform any notarial act
described in these Rules for any person requesting such an act even if he tenders the
appropriate fee specified by these Rules if:

  (a) the notary knows or has good reason to believe that the notarial act or transaction
is unlawful or immoral[.] (Emphasis supplied)

On this score, it is well to stress that "notarization is not an empty, meaningless

routinary act. It is invested with substantive public interest. It must be underscored
that the notarization by a notary public converts a private document into a
public document, making that document admissible in evidence without
further proof of authenticity thereof. A notarial document is, by law, entitled to full
faith and credit upon its face. For this reason, a notary public must observe with utmost
care the basic requirements in the performance of their duties; otherwise, the
confidence of the public in the integrity of this form of conveyance would be
undermined."27

Having established respondent's administrative liability, the Court now determines the
proper penalty.

The appropriate penalty to be meted against an errant lawyer depends on the exercise
of sound judicial discretion based on the surrounding facts. In Del Mundo v.
Capistrano,28 the Court suspended the lawyer for a period of one (1) year for his failure
to perform his undertaking under his retainership agreement with his client. Similarly,
in Conlu v. Aredonia, Jr.,29 the same penalty was imposed on a lawyer for his
inexcusable negligence in failing to file the required pleading to the prejudice of his
client. Hence, consistent with existing jurisprudence, the Court adopts the penalty
recommended by the IBP and accordingly suspends respondent from the practice of law
for a period of one (1) year. Moreover, as in the case of Dela Cruz v. Zabala,30 where
the notary public therein notarized an irregular document, the Court hereby revokes
respondent's notarial commission and further disqualifies him from being commissioned
as a notary public for a period of two (2) years.

WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Vivencio V. Jumamil is found GUlLY of violating Rule

10.01, Canon 10 and Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Accordingly, he is hereby SUSPENDED for a period of one (1) year, effective upon his
receipt of this Resolution. Moreover, in view of his violation of the 2004 Rules on
Notarial Practice, his notarial commission, if still existing, is hereby REVOKED, and he
is DISQUALIFIED from being commissioned as a notary public for a period of two (2)
years. Finally, he is STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar offense
shall be dealt with more severely.

Let a copy of this Decision be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant to be appended
to respondent's personal record as a member of the Bar. Likewise, let copies of the
same be served on the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and the Office of the Court
Administrator, which is directed to circulate them to all courts in the country for their
information and guidance.

SO ORDERED.