Samonte vs. Jumamil

A lawyer who neglects a legal matter entrusted to him by failing to file required pleadings, and who knowingly prepares and notarizes a false affidavit, violates the Code of Professional Responsibility and the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, warranting suspension from the practice of law and revocation of notarial commission.

Complainant Joy T. Samonte operated a small banana plantation in Davao City. In October 2012, she received summons from the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), Regional Arbitration Branch XI, regarding an illegal dismissal case filed by four workers against her. She engaged the services of respondent Atty. Vivencio V. Jumamil to prepare her position paper and paid him P8,000.00 in attorney's fees. Despite constant reminders, respondent failed to file the position paper, resulting in a decision holding complainant liable for P633,143.68 in favor of the workers.

• Complainant received summons from the NLRC Regional Arbitration Branch XI, Davao City in October 2012 regarding Case RAB-XI-10-00586-12, an illegal dismissal complaint filed by four persons claiming to be workers in her banana plantation.
• Complainant engaged respondent's services to prepare her position paper and paid him P8,000.00 as attorney's fees.
• Despite constant reminders regarding the submission deadline, respondent failed to file the position paper.
• On January 25, 2013, the Labor Arbiter rendered a Decision based on the evidence on record, holding complainant liable to the workers in the total amount of P633,143.68.
• When confronted about the adverse ruling, respondent casually told complainant to sell her farm to pay the farm workers.
• Respondent admitted in his Answer that he failed to file the position paper, claiming the omission was due to complainant's failure to adduce credible witnesses.
• Respondent averred that complainant instructed him to prepare an Affidavit for intended witness Romeo P. Baol with instructions that the contents were not to be interpreted in the Visayan dialect so that the witness would not know what he would be testifying on.
• Respondent admitted that he prepared and notarized the affidavit of Romeo despite his belief that Romeo was a perjured witness.
• Respondent claimed that complainant's uncle, Nicasio Ticong, who was also an intended witness, refused to execute an affidavit and testify to complainant's lies.

• Respondent failed to file the position paper despite receiving attorney's fees and constant reminders, constituting neglect of the legal matter entrusted to him.
• Respondent's failure left complainant defenseless and without remedy to protect her interests against the execution of the adverse judgment.
• Respondent betrayed the trust and confidence reposed in him by the client and acted in a manner unbecoming of a lawyer by casually advising complainant to sell her farm to satisfy the judgment.
• Respondent knowingly participated in preparing and notarizing a false affidavit, violating his oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility.

• The failure to file the position paper was due to complainant's inability to produce credible witnesses to testify in her favor.
• Complainant instructed him to prepare an affidavit for witness Romeo P. Baol but specifically directed that the contents not be interpreted in the Visayan dialect so the witness would remain unaware of the testimony contents, indicating complainant's deceitful conduct.
• Complainant's uncle refused to execute an affidavit and testify to what respondent characterized as complainant's lies.
• The complaint should be dismissed for lack of merit as complainant was the one who acted deceitfully.

• Procedural Issues: N/A
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether respondent should be held administratively liable for violating Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility for neglecting to file the position paper.
  • Whether respondent violated Rule 10.01, Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility by preparing and notarizing a perjured affidavit.
  • Whether respondent violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice by notarizing a document he knew to be unlawful or immoral.

• Procedural: N/A
• Substantive:
  • The Court found respondent guilty of violating Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the CPR. A lawyer-client relationship commenced when respondent accepted the case and received fees, creating a duty to serve the client with competence and diligence. Respondent's failure to file the position paper, regardless of his personal view regarding the lack of credible witnesses, constituted inexcusable negligence that prejudiced his client.
  • The Court found respondent guilty of violating Rule 10.01, Canon 10 of the CPR. By preparing and notarizing the affidavit of Romeo despite believing him to be a perjured witness, respondent engaged in deliberate falsehood and consented to the doing of falsehood, violating his oath to refrain from doing any falsehood in or out of court.
  • The Court found respondent violated Section 4(a), Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, which prohibits a notary from performing any notarial act if he knows or has good reason to believe the transaction is unlawful or immoral. Notarization converts a private document into a public document entitled to full faith and credit; knowingly notarizing a false affidavit undermines public confidence in the integrity of notarial acts.
  • The Court suspended respondent from the practice of law for one (1) year, revoked his notarial commission (if still existing), and disqualified him from being commissioned as a notary public for two (2) years.

• Commencement of Lawyer-Client Relationship — 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, creating fiduciary duties of competence, diligence, and fidelity.
• Duty of Fidelity and Zeal — Once a lawyer agrees to take up the cause of a client, he owes fidelity to such cause and must champion the latter's cause with wholehearted fidelity, care, and devotion, asserting every remedy or defense authorized by law regardless of his personal views.
• Prohibition Against Falsehood — The Lawyer's Oath and Rule 10.01, Canon 10 of the CPR enjoin 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.
• Nature and Importance of Notarization — Notarization is not an empty, meaningless routinary act but is invested with substantive public interest; it converts a private document into a public document entitled to full faith and credit upon its face, requiring the notary to observe utmost care to ensure the document is not unlawful or immoral.

• "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."
• "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."
• "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."

• Abay v. Montesino — Cited for the principle that a lawyer must assert every remedy and defense authorized by law to support his client's cause, regardless of his personal view of the case.
• Spouses Umaguing v. De Vera — Cited regarding the Lawyer's Oath and the duty to refrain from doing any falsehood, as well as the core values of honesty, integrity, and trustworthiness reiterated in the CPR.
• Dela Cruz v. Zabala — Cited for the principle that notarization is invested with substantive public interest and for the penalty of revocation of notarial commission for notarizing irregular documents.
• Del Mundo v. Capistrano — Cited as precedent for imposing a one-year suspension on a lawyer for failure to perform his undertaking under a retainership agreement.
• Conlu v. Aredonia, Jr. — Cited as precedent for imposing a one-year suspension for inexcusable negligence in failing to file the required pleading to the prejudice of the client.

• Rule 10.01, Canon 10, 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.
• Rule 18.03, Canon 18, Code of Professional Responsibility — Provides that a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.
• Section 4(a), Rule IV, 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice — Provides that a notary public shall not perform any notarial act if the notary knows or has good reason to believe that the notarial act or transaction is unlawful or immoral.