JOY T. SAMONTE vs. ATTY. VIVENCIO V.
JUMAMIL
Joy T. Samonte received summons from the NLRC Davao City, relative to an illegal dismissal case filed by
four 4 persons claiming to be workers in her small banana plantation
She engaged the services of Atty. Jumamil to prepare her position paper, and paid him the amount of
₱8,000.00 as attorney's fees.
Complainant Joy Samonte discovered that Atty Jumamil failed to file the position paper, despite constantly
reminding him of the deadline
As such, on January 25, 2013, the Labor Arbiter rendered a Decision whereby complainant was held liable
to the workers in the total amount of ₱633,143.68
When she confronted him about the said ruling, the latter casually told her to just sell her farm to pay the
farm workers.
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, hence, she filed the instant
complaint.
Respondent, on his part, 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
ISSUE: Whether or not respondent should be held administratively liable.
RULING: YES
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. To this end, lawyers are enjoined to employ
17
only fair and honest means to attain lawful objectives. These principles are embodied in Rule 10.01 of Canon 10
18
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.1âwphi1
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 ₱8,000.00 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, as in this case. From then on, as the CPR provides, a lawyer is duty-bound
19
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.
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 prepared and notarized the affidavit of
23 24
complainant's intended witness, Romeo, despite his belief that Romeo was a perjured witness. In Spouses
Umaguing v. De Vera 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."
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
