View full case

MONICA M. PONTIANO v. ATTY. FABIAN A. GAPPI

FACTS:

The administrative complaint was filed by several complainants against Atty. Fabian A. Gappi. Complainants were parties in an illegal dismissal case where the respondent was their counsel. They accused the respondent of gross negligence, gross inefficiency in the performance of duties, and dishonesty. The complainants alleged that the respondent failed to attend any scheduled hearing of the illegal dismissal case and did not submit a position paper on the deadline. When the complainants inquired about the status of their position paper, the respondent told them that he would take care of it. However, he did not submit any position paper. The complainants went to his office and asked him to withdraw as their counsel, but the respondent prepared a document that erroneously indicated the withdrawal of the complainants' illegal dismissal complaint. Because of the respondent's failure to file a position paper, the labor arbiter dismissed the illegal dismissal complaint. The respondent also failed to file an answer to the administrative complaint filed before the IBP. During the scheduled conferences, both the complainants and the respondent failed to appear. The complainants attended the subsequent mandatory conference, but the respondent did not. The IBP-CBD found the respondent guilty of violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility and recommended his suspension from the practice of law for two years. The IBP Board of Governors adopted the recommendation but increased the period of suspension to three years and imposed a fine of P15,000 against the respondent. The respondent filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied by the IBP-BOG.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether respondent committed gross negligence and gross inefficiency in the performance of his duty as counsel.

  2. Whether respondent deceived complainants by presenting a document that stipulated their withdrawal of their illegal dismissal complaint.

  3. Whether respondent violated Rule 18.03 of Canon 18, Canon 11, and Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).

  4. Whether the respondent lawyer violated Rule 1.01 of Canon 1, Canon 11, and Rule 18.03 of Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

  5. Whether the appropriate penalty for the respondent's violations is a three-year suspension from the practice of law.

RULING:

  1. The Court adopts the findings and recommendation of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines - Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD), as modified by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines - Board of Governors (IBP-BOG). The Court agrees that respondent should be administratively sanctioned for his violations.

  2. The Court finds the respondent lawyer guilty of violating Rule 1.01 of Canon 1, Canon 11, and Rule 18.03 of Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The respondent repeatedly failed to attend the scheduled hearing and failed to submit the required position paper, thereby violating his duty as a lawyer. (Violation of CPR Rule 1.01 of Canon 1, Canon 11, and Rule 18.03 of Canon 8)

  3. The Court adopts the recommendation of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Board of Governors (IBP-BOG) and imposes a three-year suspension from the practice of law as the appropriate penalty for the respondent's gross negligence and dishonesty in handling the complainant's case. (Penalty: Three-year suspension from the practice of law)

PRINCIPLES:

  • Lawyers have the responsibility to meet the profession's exacting standards and are expected to live by the lawyer's oath, the rules of the profession, and the CPR.

  • Lawyers owe duties to the court, to the public, to the bar, and to their clients.

  • Canon 18 of the CPR states that a lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence.

  • Rule 18.03 of Canon 18 provides that a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.

  • Canon 11 of the CPR states that a lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and to judicial officers.

  • Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the CPR instructs that lawyers, as officers of the court, are bound to maintain a high standard of legal proficiency, morality, honesty, integrity, and fair dealing.

  • Diligence is the attention and care required of a person in a given situation and is the opposite of negligence.

  • Lawyers have a duty to serve their clients with competence and diligence and to protect their clients' interests with utmost diligence.

  • Lawyers have a duty to attend to their clients' causes with care and devotion, to give appropriate attention and due preparation, and to exert their best efforts within the bounds of the law.

  • Lawyers should respect court orders and show compliance with them.

  • Lawyers should conduct themselves with integrity, honesty, probity, fairness, and straightforwardness.

  • Dishonesty and deceitful conduct are unacceptable and dishonorable to the legal profession and constitute basic moral flaws that make a lawyer unfit to practice law.

  • Lawyers are expected to uphold high standards of legal proficiency, morality, honesty, integrity, and fair dealing. They should act in a manner that upholds the ideals and principles embodied in the Code of Professional Responsibility. (CPR)

  • Disciplinary measures such as reprimand, suspension, or disbarment are available to rectify wrongful acts committed by lawyers that prejudice the rights of their clients and colleagues and offend the due administration of justice.

  • In administrative complaints against lawyers, the Court has the discretion to impose the appropriate penalty based on the facts of the case. The penalties can range from reprimand, warning with a fine, suspension, and, in aggravated cases, disbarment.

  • Gross negligence in the performance of a lawyer's duty and dishonesty in dealing with clients can warrant a significant penalty, such as a three-year suspension from the practice of law.

  • Lawyers who willfully disregard the authority of legal disciplinary bodies and disrespect their proceedings may be subject to fines.