AC 10378; (June, 2014) (Digest)
G.R. No. A.C. No. 10378, June 9, 2014
JOSE FRANCISCO T. BAENS, Complainant, vs. ATTY. JONATHAN T. SEMPIO, Respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Jose Francisco T. Baens engaged the services of respondent Atty. Jonathan T. Sempio to file a case for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage against his wife. The complainant paid the respondent the sum of ₱250,000.00 to cover expenses. The respondent allegedly failed to file the corresponding petition, and it was the complainant’s wife who successfully instituted the case (Civil Case No. 2463-08) on December 8, 2008. The complainant furnished the respondent a copy of the Summons dated December 15, 2008, but the respondent belatedly filed an Answer on March 13, 2009, after the 15-day period. The respondent also failed to object to the petition on the ground of improper venue, never checked the status of the case, and failed to attend hearings. Consequently, the case was decided on October 27, 2009 without the complainant presenting his evidence. In his defense, the respondent claimed he drafted and filed a petition in Malabon City, which was later withdrawn due to the complainant’s refusal to testify. He attributed the delay in filing the Answer to the need for the complainant to review and sign it, stated he did not receive notices from the court, and only learned of the decision on December 2, 2009.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Atty. Jonathan T. Sempio violated the Code of Professional Responsibility, specifically Canons 15, 17, 18, and Rule 18.03, through negligence and failure to diligently handle the legal matter entrusted to him.
RULING
Yes, the respondent is guilty of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Supreme Court sustained the findings of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) that the respondent was completely remiss and negligent in handling the complainant’s case. The respondent’s excuse for not receiving court notices was intolerable, as securing such notices was within his control. He failed to update himself on the case’s progress, attend hearings, or employ available legal remedies to protect his client’s interest. His actions demonstrated a lack of candor, fairness, and loyalty to his client (Canon 15), a breach of fidelity to his client’s cause (Canon 17), and a failure to serve his client with competence and diligence (Canon 18 and Rule 18.03). The Court modified the IBP Board of Governors’ resolution, suspending Atty. Jonathan T. Sempio from the practice of law for SIX (6) MONTHS effective immediately upon receipt of the Decision.