Nature of the Case and Procedural History
This is an administrative complaint filed before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, seeking the disbarment of Atty. Jose A. Suing (respondent) for deceit, malpractice, violation of the Lawyer’s Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Facts of the Case
This case stems from a Labor Case (No. 00-0403180-98 Microplast, Inc Workers Union v. Microplast), where the complainants in the case at the bar also took the same position, while the respondent Suing was the counsel for Microplast. This case sought the reinstatement of the complainants to their former positions with full back wages.
The Decision in the consolidated case (NLRC Case No. 00-04-03161-98) favored the complainants and ordered Microplast to reinstate the complainants to their former positions with full back wages, as the computation provided. The Labor issued a Writ of Execution on September 2, 2003.
The case was subsequently on the basis of individual Release Waiver and Quitclaims dated February 27, 2004, purportedly signed and sworn to by seven of the complainants in the ULP and Illegal Dismissal case before Labor Arbiter Santos in the presence of respondent.
However, 4 of the seven complainants denied having signed and sworn to before the Labor Arbiter. Hence, the case administrative complaint at bar.
Commissioner Hababag investigating the administrative complaint found out that Atty Suing did not exercise his duty to protect his client’s interest with diligence, by not ensuring the identities of who signed the Release Waiver and Quitclaims and ensuring the release of the amount owed to complainants. He then recommended Suing to be liable for negligence and be reprimanded with a warning.
Issue
Whether Atty. Suing should be disbarred for his alleged manipulation of four alleged Release Waiver and Quitclaim?
Held
The Court found Atty Suing GUILTY of negligence and gross misconduct and is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of Six (6) Months, with WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.
Although it is not reasonable to disbar the respondent under the facts and circumstances attendant to the case, the Court finds that respondent’s suspension from the practice of law for six months is in order.
References:
A.C. No. 5195. (2009, April 6). The LawPhil Project. https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/apr2009/ac_5195_2009.html