Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Jose Baens vs. Atty. Sempio (725 SCRA 321, A.C. No. 10378, June 9, 2014)

    Uploaded by

    Jayson Gabriel Soriano
    71 views1 page
    “a lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him.”

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    “a lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him.”

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    71 views1 page

    Jose Baens vs. Atty. Sempio (725 SCRA 321, A.C. No. 10378, June 9, 2014)

    Uploaded by

    Jayson Gabriel Soriano
    “a lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him.”

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    BAENS vs. SEMPIO (725 SCRA 321, A.C. No.

    10378, June 9, 2014)

    FACTS:

    Jose Baens filed an administrative case, seeking the disbarment of Atty. Jonathan Sempio
    (respondent), for violation of Canons 15, 17, 18 and Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional
    Responsibility before the IBP-CBD. In his complaint-affidavit, the complainant alleged that he
    engaged the services of the respondent to represent him and file a case for Declaration of Nullity
    of Marriage against his wife, Lourdes Mendiola-Baens. However, despite receiving the sum of
    250,000.00 to cover for the expenses in the said case, respondent failed to file the corresponding
    petition, and it was the complainant’s wife who successfully instituted the case for Declaration of
    Nullity of Marriage. Further, respondent belatedly filed an Answer and never bothered to check
    the status of the case and thus failed to discover and attend all the hearings set for the case.

    In his Answer, explained that he drafted the petition and asked the complainant to go over
    said draft after which he proceeded to file the same. Respondent argues that what contributed to
    the delay in filing the Answer was the fact that he still had to let the complainant go over the
    same and sign the verification thereof. Lastly, he was not able to attend the hearings for the case
    because he did not receive any notice from the trial court.

    The Investigating Commissioner found that the respondent failed to diligently attend to
    the case and was grossly negligent in discharging his responsibilities considering that he has
    already been fully compensated. The IBP recommended a suspension from six months to one
    year.

    ISSUE:

    Whether respondent Atty. Sempio violated Canons 15, 17, 18 and Rule 18.03 of the
    Code.

    RULING:

    The respondent was completely remiss and negligent in handling the complainant’s case,
    notwithstanding his receipt of the sum of P250,000.00 for the total expenses to be incurred in the
    said case. When a lawyer agrees to take up a client’s cause, he covenants that he will exercise
    due diligence in protecting the latter’s rights. Evidently, the acts of the respondent plainly
    demonstrated his lack of candor, fairness, and loyalty to his client as embodied in Canon 15 of
    the Code. A lawyer who performs his duty with diligence and candor not only protects the
    interest of his client; he also serves the ends of justice, does honor to the bar, and helps maintain
    the respect of the community to the legal profession.

    qRespondent violated Canon 17, and Rule 18.03 of Canon 18 of the Code which states that “a
    lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be mindful of the trust and confidence
    reposed in him.” It further mandates that “a lawyer shall serve his client with competence and
    diligence,” and that “a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his
    negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.”

    You might also like