When Lawyers Fail Clients: Negligence, Falsehood, and Notarial Misconduct

A lawyer's duty to a client is not merely contractual—it is fiduciary, grounded on the utmost trust and confidence that clients place in their counsel. When a lawyer fails to file a required pleading and then notarizes an affidavit he believes to be perjured, the Supreme Court does not hesitate to impose severe administrative sanctions. In Samonte v. Jumamil (A.C. No. 11668, July 17, 2017), the Court affirmed this principle, suspending a lawyer for one year and revoking his notarial commission for two years.

The Facts

The case arose from an illegal dismissal complaint filed against Joy T. Samonte by four individuals claiming to be workers in her banana plantation. Samonte engaged the services of Atty. Vivencio V. Jumamil to prepare her position paper before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), paying him P8,000.00 in attorney's fees.

Despite Samonte's constant reminders about the deadline, Jumamil failed to file the position paper. The Labor Arbiter consequently rendered a decision based solely on the evidence on record, holding Samonte liable for P633,143.68. When confronted, Jumamil casually suggested she sell her farm to pay the workers.

In his defense, Jumamil claimed his omission was due to Samonte's failure to produce credible witnesses. He alleged that Samonte instructed him to prepare an affidavit for a witness, Romeo P. Baol, but directed that its contents not be interpreted in the Visayan dialect so the witness would not know what he was testifying about. Jumamil also claimed that another intended witness refused to execute an affidavit because it contained lies.

The Issue

The sole issue before the Court was whether Jumamil should be held administratively liable for his actions.

The Ruling

The Court found Jumamil guilty of violating Rule 10.01, Canon 10 and Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR), as well as the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.

Negligence in Handling a Client's Case

The Court emphasized that a lawyer-client relationship commences when a lawyer agrees to handle a case and accepts payment for legal services. Once that relationship is forged, the lawyer is duty-bound to serve the client with competence and diligence.

Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the CPR explicitly provides that a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable. The Court found that Jumamil's admitted failure to file the position paper constituted a clear breach of this duty.

Notably, the Court rejected Jumamil's excuse that Samonte failed to produce credible witnesses. Citing Abay v. Montesino (462 Phil. 496 [2003]), the Court stressed that regardless of a lawyer's personal view, the lawyer must present every remedy or defense authorized by law to support the client's cause. A lawyer who voluntarily takes up a case gives an unqualified commitment to advance and defend the client's interest.

Falsehood and Notarial Misconduct

The Court also found that Jumamil violated Rule 10.01, Canon 10 of the CPR, which prohibits a lawyer from doing any falsehood or consenting to the doing of any in court. Jumamil admitted preparing and notarizing the affidavit of Romeo, despite his belief that Romeo was a perjured witness.

The notarization of a perjured affidavit also violated Section 4(a), Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, which states that a notary public shall not perform any notarial act if the notary knows or has good reason to believe that the notarial act or transaction is unlawful or immoral.

The Court reiterated that notarization is not an empty, routinary act. It converts a private document into a public document, making it admissible in evidence without further proof of authenticity. A notarial document is entitled to full faith and credit upon its face, and notaries must observe the basic requirements of their duties with utmost care.

The Penalty

The Court suspended Jumamil from the practice of law for one year, consistent with prior jurisprudence in Del Mundo v. Capistrano (685 Phil. 687 [2012]) and Conlu v. Aredonia, Jr. (673 Phil. 1 [2011]). Additionally, his notarial commission was revoked, and he was disqualified from being commissioned as a notary public for two years, following the precedent in Dela Cruz v. Zabala (485 Phil. 83 [2004]).

Practical Takeaways

• A lawyer's failure to file required pleadings—even if the client's case appears weak—constitutes negligence that warrants administrative sanction.
• A client's alleged lack of credible witnesses is not a valid excuse for abandoning a case; lawyers must assert every lawful remedy or defense available.
• Notarizing an affidavit a lawyer believes to be perjured violates both the CPR and the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.
• Notarization carries substantive public interest; it converts private documents into public documents entitled to full faith and credit.
• Administrative penalties for such misconduct can include suspension from practice and revocation of notarial commission.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.