G.R. No. A.C. No. 10890, July 01, 2020
LETECIA G. SIAO, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. BAYANI S. ATUP, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Letecia G. Siao filed an administrative complaint against Atty. Bayani S. Atup for alleged violations of the Lawyer’s Oath and Section 16, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court. The complaint alleged that Atty. Atup appended a falsified Special Power of Attorney (SPA), purportedly executed in 1999 by his client Gabriel Yap, Sr., to a Motion for Reconsideration filed before the Court of Appeals (CA) in the case “Cebu South Memorial Garden, Gabriel Yap, Sr., et al. v. Letecia Siao, et al.” (CA-G.R. CV No. 02037). Letecia also asserted that Atty. Atup failed to formally inform the CA of Gabriel’s death within 30 days, as required by the Rules. Atty. Atup defended himself by arguing that Letecia failed to substantiate the forgery allegation, noting that the SPA was a notarized document enjoying a presumption of regularity, and that any delay in notification did not prejudice Letecia. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Investigating Commissioner initially recommended a one-year suspension for violating Section 16, Rule 3, but found no basis for the falsification charge. The IBP Board of Governors adopted this finding but later reduced the suspension to one month, citing an absence of bad faith.

ISSUE

Whether Atty. Bayani S. Atup is administratively liable for: (1) violating Section 16, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court by failing to properly inform the court of his client’s death and to provide the names and addresses of the legal representatives; and (2) falsifying a Special Power of Attorney.

RULING

The Court found Atty. Atup GUILTY of violating Canon 1 and Rule 10.03, Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and SUSPENDED him from the practice of law for one month, with a stern warning against repetition.
1. On the violation of Section 16, Rule 3: The Court held that Atty. Atup violated his duty under Section 16, Rule 3, which requires counsel to inform the court of a client’s death within 30 days and provide the names and addresses of the legal representatives. Atty. Atup filed a Motion for Reconsideration on behalf of his deceased client, Gabriel Yap, Sr. (who died on May 31, 2013), and only informally mentioned the death in the motion without properly notifying the CA or providing the required details, such as the name of Gabriel’s widow or an appointed administrator. This constituted a failure to observe procedural rules, undermining respect for legal processes.
2. On the falsification charge: The Court ruled that the administrative case was not the proper forum to resolve allegations of falsification or forgery, as such matters must be established in appropriate civil or criminal proceedings. The SPA, being a notarized document, carried a presumption of regularity, and Letecia failed to present clear and convincing evidence to overcome this presumption.
The penalty of one-month suspension was deemed commensurate with the transgression, considering the absence of bad faith and the guidelines applied by the IBP Board of Governors.