G.R. No. A.C. No. 12423. March 26, 2019
Alfredo San Gabriel, Complainant vs. Atty. Jonathan T. Sempio, Respondent

FACTS

Complainant Alfredo San Gabriel engaged the services of respondent Atty. Jonathan T. Sempio in January 2014 to handle the annulment of his marriage, paying him ₱120,000.00 as legal fees. Respondent filed the petition but subsequently failed to comply with a court order, leading to the dismissal of the case without prejudice in July 2015. Respondent promised to rectify the situation by filing a motion for reconsideration, which led to the reinstatement of the case. However, complainant’s subsequent follow-ups were ignored, and he later discovered respondent had left the country without notice, resulting in the archiving of the case.
Respondent denied neglect, claiming his inaction was due to his suspension from the practice of law in a prior administrative case (Baens v. Sempio). He asserted that after learning of his suspension, he met with complainant, informed him of his predicament and depression, and advised him to find a replacement lawyer before proceeding abroad. Respondent believed there was an agreement for complainant to secure new counsel.

ISSUE

Whether or not respondent should be held administratively liable for his actions in handling the complainant’s case.

RULING

Yes, respondent is administratively liable. The Court found that respondent violated Canons 15, 17, 18, and Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). A lawyer’s acceptance of a client’s money establishes an attorney-client relationship, imposing a duty to serve with competence, diligence, and fidelity. Records show respondent unduly neglected the case, evidenced by its dismissal due to his failure to comply with court orders and its subsequent archiving due to his inaction after reinstatement.
The Court rejected respondent’s defenses. His claim of being hampered by his suspension was untenable, as there was a seven-month period between filing the petition and learning of his suspension during which he took no positive action. His alleged depression and advice to complainant to find new counsel did not absolve him; he failed to take the necessary steps to formally withdraw or ensure a proper substitution of counsel to protect his client’s interests. His abandonment of the case and departure abroad constituted a blatant disregard of his duties. Considering his similar negligence in a prior case, the Court affirmed the IBP’s recommendation and suspended respondent from the practice of law for two (2) years.