A.C. No. 5307; August 9, 2000
IN RE: VICENTE Y. BAYANI

FACTS

The case originated from Atty. Vicente Y. Bayani’s failure to submit proof of service of the appellant’s brief on the Solicitor General in G.R. No. 115079 . This omission prevented the Solicitor General from filing the appellee’s brief. The Supreme Court referred this procedural lapse to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation.
The IBP Commissioner sent a notice to Atty. Bayani requiring his comment, but the letter was returned with the notation “Return to Sender-Moved.” Consequently, the investigating commissioner found him in violation of professional rules and recommended a three-month suspension from the practice of law, contingent upon his compliance with the Court’s order.

ISSUE

Whether Atty. Vicente Y. Bayani should be held administratively liable for his failure to comply with a procedural requirement and subsequent disregard of the IBP’s investigative process.

RULING

Yes, Atty. Bayani is administratively liable. The Supreme Court concurred with the IBP’s findings and recommendation. The legal logic is grounded on the Code of Professional Responsibility, specifically Rule 18.03 of Canon 18, which mandates that a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him.
Atty. Bayani’s failure to submit the required proof of service constituted neglect of a legal duty, prejudicing the procedural rights of the opposing party. His subsequent failure to respond to the IBP’s notice, despite constructive service, demonstrated willful disobedience to lawful orders of the Court and a disregard for the investigative authority of the IBP. These acts reflect a deficiency in the professional diligence and circumspection required of every lawyer, who must uphold procedural rules and respond to court directives. The suspension serves to uphold the standards of the legal profession and the administration of justice.