Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

FIRST DIVISION

A.C. No. 10378 June 9, 2014

JOSE FRANCISCO T. BAENS, Complainant,

DECISION

REYES, J.:

Before this Court is an administrative case, seeking the disbarment of Atty. Jonathan T. Sempio (respondent), for violation of
Canons 15,1 17,2 183 and Rule 18.034 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (Code), commenced thru a complaint-
affidavit5 filed before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) by Jose Francisco T.
Baens (complainant).

This legal battle stemmed when the complainant engaged the services of the respondent to represent him and file a case for
Declaration of Nullity of Marriage against his wife, Lourdes V. Mendiola-Baens. In his complaint-affidavit dated March 15,
2010, the complainant alleged, among others, that the respondent: (1) despite receiving the sum of 250,000.00 to cover for
the expenses in the said case,6 failed to file the corresponding petition, and it was the complainant’s wife who successfully
instituted Civil Case No. 2463-08,7 for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage on December 8, 2008; (2) even with the
complainant furnishing him a copy of the Summons dated December 15, 2008,8 belatedly filed an Answer9 and was able to
file it only on March 13, 2009 which was after the 15-day period stated in the Summons; (3) failed to make an objection on
the petition on the ground of improper venue as neither the complainant nor his wife were and are residents of Dasmariñas,
Cavite; (4) never bothered to check the status of the case and thus failed to discover and attend all the hearings set for the
case; and (5) as a result, Civil Case No. 2463-08 was decided10 on October 27, 2009 without the complainant being able to
present his evidence.

In his Answer,11 the respondent denied the allegations in the complaint, and explained that: (1) after a meeting with the
complainant, he drafted the Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage and asked the complainant to go over said draft
after which he proceeded to file the same with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malabon City; (2) the complainant was
aware that said petition will be filed in Malabon City as the latter had signed the verification and certification of the petition;
(3) the case became pending and was later on withdrawn because of the complainant’s refusal to testify; (4) what contributed
to the delay in filing the Answer was the fact that he still had to let the complainant go over the same and sign the
verification thereof; (5) he was not able to attend the hearings for the case because he did not receive any notice from the
trial court; and (6) it was only on December 2, 2009 when he found out that the trial court has already rendered its decision
and that the complainant had changed counsels.

In the mandatory conference held before the IBP-CBD on October 29, 2010, only the complainant appeared; thus, the
respondent was declared as having waived his right to further participate in the IBP proceedings. Nonetheless, in the interest
of justice, both parties were required to submit their respective position papers.12

The Investigating Commissioner submitted his Report and Recommendation13 dated October 22, 2011, finding the
respondent guilty of violation of the Code and recommended that the respondent be suspended for six (6) months from the
practice of law. Specifically, the Investigating Commissioner found that the respondent failed to diligently attend to the case
and was grossly negligent in discharging his responsibilities considering the fact that he has already been fully compensated.
The Investigating Commissioner said that the respondent should have manifested or made known to the trial court that he
was not receiving any notice at all since it behoves upon him to make a follow-up on the developments of the cases he is
handling.

As to the respondent’s argument that he indeed filed a Petition for the Declaration of Nullity of Marriage for the
complainant, the Investigating Commissioner held that it cannot betaken at face value absent the presentation of the pleading
itself which by a perusal of the records of the case was not submitted to the IBP-CBD. Moreso, the veracity of the
Certification attached to the respondent’s answer was highly questionable because it failed to state when the said petition
was filed. Lastly, the Investigating Commissioner faulted the respondent for not sufficiently explaining to the complainant
the consequences of the petition being filed in the RTC of Malabon City since it was the respondent’s duty and responsibility
to explain the complexities of the same to his client for he is the one tasked with the technical know-how in the field of law.

On June 22, 2013, the IBP Board of Governors resolved to adopt and approve the Investigating Commissioner’s report but
deemed it proper to increase the recommended period of suspension from six (6) months to one (1) year.14 On February 14,
2014, the IBP-CBD transmitted the notice of the resolution and the case records to the Court for final action pursuant to
Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court.15

The Court finds it fitting to sustain the IBP’s findings and the recommended sanction of suspension from the practice of law
since the attendant facts of the case show substantial evidence to support the respondent’s delinquency.

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. For his part, the lawyer is expected to maintain at all times a high standard of legal proficiency, and to
devote his full attention, skill, and competence to the case, regardless of its importance and whether he accepts it for a fee or
for free.16 Lawyering is not a business; it is a profession in which duty of public service, not money, is the primary
consideration.17

It is beyond dispute that the complainant engaged the services of the respondent to handle his case. The records, however,
definitively bear out that the respondent was completely remiss and negligent in handling the complainant’s case,
notwithstanding his receipt of the sum of ₱250,000.00 for the total expenses to be incurred in the said case.

The excuse proffered by the respondent that he did not receive any orders or notices from the trial court is highly
intolerable.1âwphi1 In the first place, securing a copy of such notices, orders and case records was within the respondent’s
control and is a task that a lawyer undertakes. Moreso, the preparation and the filing of the answer is a matter of procedure
that fully fell within the exclusive control and responsibility of the respondent. It was incumbent upon him to execute all
acts and procedures necessary and incidental to the advancement of his client’s cause of action.

Records further disclose that the respondent omitted to update himself of the progress of his client’s case with the trial court,
and neither did he resort to available legal remedies that might have protected his client’s interest. Although a lawyer has
complete discretion on what legal strategy to employ in a case entrusted to him, he must present every remedy or defense
within the authority of law to support his client’s interest. When a lawyer agrees to take up a client’s cause, he covenants that
he will exercise due diligence in protecting the latter’s rights.18

Evidently, the acts of the respondent plainly demonstrated his lack of candor, fairness, and loyalty to his client as embodied
in Canon 15 of the Code. 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.19

In this case, the respondent’s reckless and inexcusable negligence deprived his client of due process and his actions were
evidently prejudicial to his clients’ interests. A lawyer’s duty of competence and diligence includes not merely reviewing the
cases entrusted to his care or giving sound legal advice, but also consists of properly representing the client before any court
or tribunal, attending scheduled hearings or conferences, preparing and filing the required pleadings, prosecuting the
handled cases with reasonable dispatch, and urging their termination even without prodding from the client or the court.20

Clearly, it cannot be doubted that the respondent violated Canon 17, and Rule 18.03 of Canon 18 of the Code which states
that "a lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him." It
further mandates that "a lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence," and that "a lawyer shall not neglect a
legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable."21

It must be emphasized that after the respondent agreed to handle the complainant’s case, he became duty-bound to serve his
client with competence and diligence, and to champion his cause with whole-hearted fidelity. By failing to afford his client
every remedy and defense that is authorized by law, the respondent fell short of what is expected of him as an officer of the
Court.22

Thus, for the respondent’s negligence and inadequacies in handling his client’s case, the recommendation of the IBP to
suspend the respondent from the practice of law is well-taken. While the IBP Board of Governors increased the period of
suspension to one year, the Court finds the period of six months as recommended by the Investigating Commissioner
commensurate to the facts of the case.

ACCORDINGLY, the Court AFFIRMS with MODIFICATION the Resolution dated June 22, 2013 of the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines Board of Governors in CBD Case No. 10-2673. The Court hereby SUSPENDS Atty. Jonathan T. Sempio
from the practice of law for SIX (6) MONTHS effective immediately upon receipt of this Decision.

Let a copy of this Decision be entered in the personal records of Atty. Jonathan T. Sempio as a member of the Bar, and
copies furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and the Office of the Court
Administrator for circulation to all courts in the country.

SO ORDERED.

BIENVENIDO L. REYES
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:

MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO

TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO LUCAS P. BERSAMIN

MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR.

Footnotes

1 CANON 15 - A lawyer shall observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all his dealings and transactions with
his clients.

2 CANON 17 -A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be mindful of the trust and
confidence reposed in him.

3 CANON 18 - A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence.

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

5 Rollo, pp. 2-12.

6 Id. at 13-16.

7 Id. at 17-25.

8 Id. at 37.

9 Id. at 38-51.

The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation