G.R. No. A.C. No. 11830. July 30, 2019.
Spouses Nerie S. Asuncion and Cristita B. Asuncion, Complainants vs. Atty. Edilberto P. Bassig, Respondent.

FACTS

Spouses Asuncion filed a disbarment complaint against Atty. Edilberto P. Bassig for deceit and gross misconduct. The complaint stemmed from Atty. Bassig filing a civil complaint for annulment of titles in November 2012 on behalf of a client, Fidel B. Cabangon. The complainants alleged, and subsequently proved with a death certificate, that Cabangon had already been deceased for two years prior to the filing of the lawsuit. This act constituted a material falsehood before the court.
During the proceedings before the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD), Atty. Bassig appeared at the mandatory conference but failed to file his required verified answer or position paper despite orders. The case was heard ex-parte. The IBP Investigating Commissioner found him guilty, a finding adopted by the IBP Board of Governors, which recommended a two-year suspension. Atty. Bassig filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing he had no prior knowledge of his client’s death, claiming his services were engaged by an alleged agent of Cabangon who provided a signed verification, and that the agent concealed the death.

ISSUE

Whether Atty. Edilberto P. Bassig should be held administratively liable for violating his lawyer’s oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility by filing a complaint in the name of a deceased client.

RULING

Yes, Atty. Bassig is administratively liable. The Supreme Court affirmed the IBP’s findings and the recommended penalty of suspension from the practice of law for two years. The legal logic is anchored on the lawyer’s fundamental duty of candor and honesty to the court. Filing a pleading in the name of a deceased person, who lacks legal personality to sue, constitutes a deceitful and unlawful act that materially misleads the court. This violates Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the lawyer’s oath to “do no falsehood.”
The Court rejected Atty. Bassig’s defense of lack of knowledge and reliance on an alleged agent. His claim demonstrated either ill intent or gross negligence. A lawyer has a positive duty to verify the identity and status of his client, especially before initiating a suit. Relying solely on an unnamed individual without a written authority exhibits a reckless disregard for this duty. His failure to rectify the error upon being informed of the death, coupled with his disregard of IBP orders by not filing his answer, further evidenced a lack of the good moral character required of every lawyer. The act, whether intentional or due to gross incompetence, seriously impugns his fitness to practice law and undermines public confidence in the legal profession.