Case Digest: SAMBAJON, et al. v. ATTY. SUING

RENERIO SAMBAJON, et al. v. ATTY. JOSE A. SUING

503 SCRA 1 (2006)

The practice of law does requires only ordinary diligence or that degree of vigilance expected of a bonus pater familias.

Sambajon, et al. are parties to a previous labor case in which the Atty. Jose Suing is the counsel of their employer Microplast, Inc. A judgment in favor of them was rendered by the Labor Arbiter and a writ of execution was issued against Microplast, Inc.

In the meantime, the Labor Arbiter dismissed the case insofar as the seven complainants are concerned on the basis of individual Release Waiver and Quitclaims purportedly signed and sworn to by them.

Four of the seven who purportedly executed the Release Waiver and Quitclaims, denied having signed and sworn to before the Labor Arbiter the said documents or having received the considerations therefor. They subsequently filed an administrative complaint alleging that respondent, acting in collusion with his clients Johnny and Manuel Rodil, ―frustrated‖ the implementation of the Writ of Execution by presenting before the Labor Arbiter the spurious documents. A Complaint seeking the disbarment of Atty. Jose A. Suing on the grounds of deceit, malpractice, violation of Lawyer’s Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility was also filed.

During the administrative hearings before the IBP Commissioner, it was apparent that Atty. Suing was coaching his client to prevent himself from being incriminated. It was also revealed that the Release Waiver and Quitclaims allegedly signed were not the same documents originally presented to the employees to be signed.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the acts of Respondent Atty. Suing is an act arguably violative of the Lawyers’ Code of Ethics

HELD:

Diligence is ―the attention and care required of a person in a given situation and is the opposite of negligence.‖ A lawyer serves his client with diligence by adopting that norm of practice expected of men of good intentions. He thus owes entire devotion to the interest of his client, warm zeal in the defense and maintenance of his rights, and the exertion of his utmost learning, skill, and ability to ensure

that nothing shall be taken or withheld from him, save by the rules of law legally applied. It is axiomatic in the practice of law that the price of success is eternal diligence to the cause of the client.

The practice of law does not require extraordinary diligence (exactissima diligentia) or that ―extreme measure of care and caution which persons of unusual prudence and circumspection use for securing and preserving their rights. All that is required is ordinary diligence (diligentia) or that degree of vigilance expected of a bonus pater familias.

In the case at bar, not only did Atty. Suing try to coach his client or influence him to answer questions in an apparent attempt not to incriminate him. His client contradicted Atty. Suing’s claim that the Release Waiver and Quitclaim which he prepared was not the one presented at the Arbiter’s Office, as well as his implied claim that he was not involved in releasing to the complainants the money for and in consideration of the execution of the documents.

As an officer of the court, a lawyer is called upon to assist in the administration of justice. He is an instrument to advance its cause. Any act on his part that tends to obstruct, perverts or impedes the administration of justice constitutes misconduct. While the Commission on Bar Discipline is not a court, the proceedings therein are nonetheless part of a judicial proceeding, a disciplinary action being in reality an investigation by the Court into the misconduct of its officers or an examination into his character.