THIRD DIVISION DIVI SION [A.C. No. 102 10 286. April April 7, 2014.] ATTY. RODRIGO B. BUMACTAO, BUMACTAO , complainant , vs. ATTY. RESTITO F. FANO FANO,, respondent .
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated April 7, 2014, 2014, which reads as follows : "A.C. No. 10286 (Atty. Rodrigo B. Bumactao vs. Atty. Restito F. Fano). — This involves a disc disciplinary comp complaint laint directly directly filed w ith the Integ In tegrated rated Bar of of the Philippines Phil ippines (IBP) (I BP) by complainant complainant Atty. Atty. Rodrigo Rodrigo B. Bumac Bum actao tao against responde respondent nt Atty Att y. Restito Resti to F. Fano. Fano. I n his hi s compla complaint, int, 1 Atty Att y. Bumactao Bu mactao charged Atty Att y. Fano Fano wit w ith h gross misconduct misconduct for f or having suppose supposedly dly made a false representati representation on in i n a pleading pleading and a motion m otion that the latter latt er filed with w ith the Department Department of Labor Labor and Employment. Employment. Atty. Fano was the counsel for Nagkakaisang Manggagawa sa JJPNB Transport Services-K Services-Kapis apisanan anan sa Kapakanan Kapakanan ng Manggag Manggagawan awang g Pilipino Pilipin o (KAKAMPI (K AKAMPI), ), a petitioner in proceedings relating to the "Petition for Certification Election of the Rank and File Worke W orkers rs of JJ PNB Transport ransport Servic Servi ce" (petition (petit ion for f or certifi certific cation electi election) on) docke docketed ted as Case No. NCR-QC-CE-02-20 NCR-QC-CE-0 2-20-5-11 -5-11 and Case Case No. QC-CE-02QC-CE-02 17-6-11. 2 Atty. Atty. Bumac Bum actao tao alleged that Atty Att y. Fano Fano indic in dicated ated "MCLE Compliance C ompliance No. II III0018308" in two submissions to the Department of Labor and Employment: first, K AKAMPI's AKAMPI 's "Reply "Reply to t o Res Respond pondent' ent's s Comment/Opp Comment/ Oppos osit ition" ion" 3 dated August 17, 2011; second, KAKAMPI's "Motion for Deferment of Certification Election," 4 also dated dated August August 17, 2011 2 011.. Supported by by a certific certifi cation iss issued ued by the Manda M andatory tory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) Office 5 and dated September 6, 2011, Atty. Bumactao asserted that Arty. Fano indicated an MCLE compliance number despite his failure to comply with the third MCLE compliance period. 6 Thus, as Atty. Fano supposedly engaged in deceptive acts which are tantamount to gross misconduct, Atty. Bumactao prayed that "appropriate disciplinary action . . . be imposed against respondent . . . ." 7 I n his answ answ er, 8 Atty. Atty. Fano Fano admitted admitt ed to having havin g indicated "MCLE Compliance C ompliance No. I I I -0018308" -0018308 " on both both the t he reply reply and the motion. Moreove Moreover, r, he admit admitted ted that it "is actual actually ly MCLE MC LE Complianc Compli ance e No. II-0018308," 9 albeit albeit attributing the error to his secretary/liaison officer. 10 Atty. Fano explained the error as having been made on account of his reliance on the representati representation on of the th e MCLE providers whose MCLE seminars he had attended CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016
cdasiaonline.com
(i.e., Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila [PLM] Law Center and the IBP Quezon City Chapter), and since he attended four (4) full MCLE seminars, he already completed the requisite number of MCLE units. He asserted that he was belatedly informed that he had yet to complete tw o (2) units of Legal Ethics and two (2) units of Trial Procedure. He emphasized that despite his protestations that it was the MCLE providers which were in error, he still attended subsequent MCLE seminars so as to complete the requisite number of MCLE units. 11 cETCID
A mandatory conference was scheduled on March 28, 2012, but only Atty. Fano appeared. The mandatory conference was terminated so as not to delay the disposition of the case. The parties were then directed to submit their position papers. 12 On September 20, 2012, IBP Investigating Commissioner Atty. Eldrid C. Antiquiera issued a report and recommendation 13 finding that Atty. Fano should not be penalized as he acted in good faith, relying on the representations of the MCLE providers. He held that, at most, Atty. Fano committed excusable negligence but not misconduct w hich is so gross as to w arrant the imposition of disciplinary sanctions. Thus, he recommended that the complaint be dismissed for lack of merit. In its Resolution No. XX-2013-443 dated April 16, 2013, the IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved Commissioner Antiquiera's report and recommendation. After a careful examination of the records, this court disagrees with the conclusions of Commissioner Antiquiera and the I BP Board of Governors. His assertions of good faith notwithstanding, Atty. Fano acted negligently and admittedly made false representations in the reply and the motion. In so doing, he has vexed the Department of Labor and Employment as well as the parties and counsels adverse to his clients' case in the proceedings relating to the petition for certification election by submitting a deficient pleading and motion. Worse, he has jeopardized his clients' own case by seeking relief through submissions which could have been expunged from the records and, therefore, rendered inutile. Thus, we reverse Resolution No. XX-2013-443 and suspend Atty. Fano from the practice of law for one (1) month. aCTADI
The legal profession requires lawyers to adhere to the "highest standards of truthfulness." 14 As this court has stated in Ducat v. Villalon : 15 The ethics of the legal profession rightly enjoin lawyers to act with the highest standards of truthfulness, fair play and nobility in the course of his practice of law. A lawyer may be disciplined or suspended for any misconduct, whether in his professional or private capacity, which shows him to be wanting in moral character, in honesty, in probity and good demeanor, thus rendering unworthy to continue as an officer of the court. 16
This court has emphasized that lawyers are "guardians of truth": By swearing the lawyer's oath, an attorney becomes a guardian of truth and the rule of law, and an indispensable instrument in the fair and impartial administration of justice — a vital function of democracy a failure of which is disastrous to society. Any departure from the path CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016
cdasiaonline.com
which a lawyer must follow as demanded by the virtues of his profession s hall not be tolerated by this Court as the disciplining authority for there is perhaps no profession after that of the sacred ministry in which a high toned morality is more imperative than that of law. 17
Apart from these exhortations on the exacting standards enjoined upon lawyers, Rule 10.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility is clear in requiring lawyers to "observe the rules of procedure and . . . not misuse them to defeat the ends of justice." Here, it is established that Atty. Restito F. Fano falsely indicated "MCLE Compliance No. II I-0018308" in two submissions to the Department of Labor and Employment, i.e., in a reply and in a motion. The admitted falsity notwithstanding, Atty. Fano endeavored to douse his culpability by shifting the blame to the MCLE providers, namely, PLM Law Center and the IBP Quezon City Chapter, and insisting that he acted in good faith. He likewise attributed the indication of "MCLE Compliance No. III-0018308" to his secretary/liaison officer as an "honest mistake . . . because of the pressure of his many duties." 18 We are not impressed. Bar Matter No. 1922 dated June 3, 2008 requires "practicing members of the bar to indicate in all pleadings filed before the courts or quasi-judicial bodies; the number and date of issue of their MCLE Certificate of Compliance or Certificate of Exemption, as may be applicable . . . ." It further provides that "[f]ailure to disclose the required information would cause the dismissal of the case and the expunction of the pleadings from the records." IEHTaA
At the very least, Atty. Fano was negligent in failing to monitor his own MCLE compliance. This is a sort of negligence that is hardly excusable. As a member of the legal profession, Atty. Fano ought to have known that non-compliance would have resulted in the rendering inutile of any pleading he may file before any tribunal. The grave consequence of non-compliance notwithstanding, Atty. Fano (by his own account) admitted to having complacently relied on the statements of MCLE providers. His negligence, therefore, risked harm not only upon himself — with him now burdened with the present complaint as a direct consequence — but worse, upon his clients whose reliefs they seek through their pleadings being possibly rendered inoperative. Atty. Fano's claim that the indication of "MCLE Compliance No. III-0018308" was made by his secretary/liaison officer affords him no relief. As this court has stated in Gutierrez v. Zulueta : 19 The explanation given by the respondent lawyer to the effect that the failure is attributable to the negligence of his secretary is devoid of merit. A respons ible lawyer is expected to supervise the work in his office with respect to all the pleadings to be filed in court and he should not delegate this responsibility, lock, stock and barrel, to his office secretary. If it were otherwise, irresponsible members of the legal profession can avoid appropriate disciplinary action by simply disavowing liability and attributing the problem to the fault or negligence of the office secretary. Such situation will not be countenanced by this Court. 20 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016
cdasiaonline.com
In sum, Atty. Fano has not only fallen short of the standard of accuracy and truth that is required of members of the bar. He has also heaped upon the Department of Labor and Employment the vexation of having to tend to a deficient pleading and motion. In so doing, he has fallen short of the injunction for him to diligently adhere to rules of procedure. He has heaped upon adverse parties and counsels the same vexation. In fact, had attention to his error not been called through this present complaint, Atty. Fano could have very well been free to foist his error on even more litigants, fellow lawyers, and tribunals. Worst, he has endangered his own clients' entitlement to lawful relief. He has effectively compelled them to bear the burden of summarily perfunctorily losing remedies through a formally deficient pleading and motion. Not being merely negligent but having engendered damage upon a tribunal, adverse litigants and counsels, and even his own clients, Atty. Fano is suspended by this court from the practice of law. WHEREFORE, Resolution No. XX-2013-443 of the IBP Board of Governors is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Respondent Atty. Restito F. Fano is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one (1) month and STERNLY WARNED that any similar infraction will be dealt with more severely. Let copies of this resolution be entered in the record of respondent and served on the IBP as well as on the Court Administrator who shall circulate it to all courts for their information and guidance. SO ORDERED." Very truly yours, (SGD.) LUCITA ABJELINA SORIANO Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 2-3. 2. Id. at 2. 3. Id. at 5-10. 4. Id. at 11-13. 5. Id. at 17. 6. Id. at 3. 7. Id. 8. Id. at 19-22. 9. Id. at 22. 10. Id. at 78. CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016
cdasiaonline.com
11. Id. at 20-21. 12. Id. at 98. 13. Id. at 97-99. 14. Ducat v. Villalon , 392 Phil. 394, 402 (2000) [Per J. De Leon, Jr., Second Division]. 15. Id. at 394. 16. Id. at 402, citing Cruz v. Jacinto, 385 Phil. 359 (2000) [Per J. Melo, Third Division). 17. Radjaie v. Alovera, 392 Phil. 1, 17 (2000) [Per Curiam, En Banc], citing Busiños v. Ricafort , 347 Phil. 687, 695 (1997) [Per Curiam, En Banc] and Tapucar v. Atty. Tapucar , 355 Phil. 66, 72 (1998) [Per Curiam, En Banc]. 18. Rollo, p. 78. 19. A.C. No. 2200, July 19, 1990, 187 SCRA 607 [Per Curiam, En Banc]. 20. Id. at 610.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016
cdasiaonline.com
