The Supreme Court held that Atty. Vivencio V. Jumamil violated the Code of Professional Responsibility by neglecting a client’s case and engaging in falsehood. Specifically, he failed to file a position paper despite accepting payment and prepared a perjured affidavit. This decision underscores the high standards of diligence and honesty required of lawyers, reinforcing their duty to serve clients competently and ethically. The Court suspended Atty. Jumamil from practicing law for one year and revoked his notarial commission.

When a Lawyer’s Neglect and Deceit Harm a Client: Upholding Legal Ethics

Joy T. Samonte filed a complaint against Atty. Vivencio V. Jumamil, seeking his disbarment for actions unbecoming of a lawyer and for betrayal of trust. The case stemmed from Atty. Jumamil’s failure to file a position paper on behalf of Samonte in an illegal dismissal case before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), despite receiving attorney’s fees. This neglect resulted in an adverse decision against Samonte. Further, Atty. Jumamil prepared and notarized an affidavit from a witness he believed to be perjured.

The central issue was whether Atty. Jumamil should be held administratively liable for his actions. The Supreme Court addressed this issue by examining the duties and responsibilities of lawyers to their clients and to the court. The relationship between a lawyer and client is built on trust and confidence. Lawyers must be mindful of their client’s causes and exercise diligence in handling their affairs, maintaining a high standard of legal proficiency, and dedicating their full attention, skill, and competence to their cases. Lawyers must employ fair and honest means to achieve lawful objectives.

These principles are articulated in Rule 10.01 of Canon 10 and Rule 18.03 of Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). Canon 10 emphasizes candor, fairness, and good faith to the court. Rule 10.01 states 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.” Canon 18 requires lawyers to serve their clients with competence and diligence. Rule 18.03 specifies that “A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.”

The Court found that a lawyer-client relationship was established when Atty. Jumamil agreed to represent Samonte before the NLRC and received payment for his services. Once such a relationship is established, the lawyer is duty-bound to serve the client with competence and diligence, and not to neglect the legal matter entrusted to him. In this case, Atty. Jumamil breached his duty by failing to file the position paper, resulting in an adverse ruling against Samonte.

The Supreme Court emphasized that even if Samonte failed to produce credible witnesses, this did not justify Atty. Jumamil abandoning his client’s cause. By voluntarily taking up Samonte’s case, Atty. Jumamil made an unqualified commitment to advance and defend her interests. He owed fidelity to her cause and had to be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him. The Court cited Abay v. Montesino, where it was explained that a lawyer must present every remedy or defense within the law to support the client’s cause, irrespective of the lawyer’s personal view. As stated in Abay v. Montesino:

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.

Furthermore, the Court agreed with the IBP’s finding that Atty. Jumamil violated Rule 10.01, Canon 10 of the CPR. He engaged in deliberate falsehood by preparing and notarizing the affidavit of Romeo, an intended witness, despite believing that Romeo was a perjured witness. The Lawyer’s Oath requires lawyers to obey the laws of the land and refrain from doing any falsehood. The Supreme Court reiterated this principle in Spouses Umaguing v. De Vera, stating:

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.

The notarization of a perjured affidavit also violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, specifically Section 4(a), Rule IV, which states that a notary public shall not perform any notarial act if they know or have good reason to believe that the act or transaction is unlawful or immoral. The Court emphasized that notarization converts a private document into a public document, which carries significant legal weight. Therefore, a notary public must observe utmost care in performing their duties.

In determining the appropriate penalty, the Court considered precedents. Given the violations, the Court suspended Atty. Jumamil from the practice of law for one year. Additionally, the Court revoked Atty. Jumamil’s notarial commission and disqualified him from being commissioned as a notary public for two years. The Court took a stern view of Atty. Jumamil’s actions, particularly his violation of legal ethics and his breach of duty to his client.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether Atty. Vivencio V. Jumamil should be held administratively liable for neglecting his client’s case and engaging in falsehood, thereby violating the Code of Professional Responsibility and the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.
What specific actions did Atty. Jumamil take that led to the complaint?	Atty. Jumamil failed to file a position paper for his client in an illegal dismissal case, despite receiving attorney’s fees. He also prepared and notarized an affidavit from a witness he believed to be perjured.
What are the specific rules in the Code of Professional Responsibility that Atty. Jumamil violated?	Atty. Jumamil violated Rule 10.01 of Canon 10, which prohibits lawyers from engaging in falsehood, and Rule 18.03 of Canon 18, which requires lawyers to serve their clients with competence and diligence.
What was the ruling of the Supreme Court in this case?	The Supreme Court found Atty. Jumamil guilty of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility. As a result, he was suspended from the practice of law for one year, and his notarial commission was revoked.
Why is the relationship between a lawyer and client considered one of utmost trust and confidence?	Clients trust lawyers to be mindful of their cause, exercise diligence in handling their affairs, maintain a high standard of legal proficiency, and dedicate their full attention to their cases.
What is the significance of notarization, and why is it important for notaries public to observe their duties carefully?	Notarization converts a private document into a public document, making it admissible in evidence without further proof of authenticity. Notaries public must observe their duties carefully to maintain public confidence in the integrity of this form of conveyance.
Can a lawyer abandon a client’s case if the client fails to produce credible witnesses?	No, a lawyer cannot abandon a client’s case on this basis. By voluntarily taking up the case, the lawyer makes an unqualified commitment to advance and defend the client’s interests.
What does the Lawyer’s Oath require of attorneys?	The Lawyer’s Oath requires attorneys to obey the laws of the land, refrain from doing any falsehood, and conduct themselves with all good fidelity to the courts and their clients.

This case serves as a stark reminder of the ethical responsibilities of lawyers in the Philippines. The Supreme Court’s decision underscores the importance of upholding the standards of the legal profession and safeguarding the public trust. The penalties imposed reflect the gravity of the violations and serve as a deterrent against similar misconduct in the future.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: JOY T. SAMONTE vs. ATTY. VIVENCIO V. JUMAMIL, A.C. No. 11668, July 17, 2017