12. FEDERICO D. RICAFORT, complainant, vs. ATTY. EDDIE R. BANSIL, respondent.

(CANON 8)
FACTS: Ricafort requested the clerk of court to send word to Bansil that he wanted to verify notarized
documents by Bansil and to bring the the same to the office of clerk of court. (respondent submitted his notarial book
and documents but the same were returned to him for safekeeping considering that there was no space in the Office of the Clerk of Court to
accommodate the notarial books and documents. However, they are required to bring them to the Clerk of Court when needed for

Atty. Bacani, the clerk of court has repeatedly called up Bansil

regarding the request but to no avail. This prompted Ricafort to send letter to Bansil but still failed and
refused to request without justifiable reason nor responded.
inspection/verification of documents upon request)

Ricafort filed a complaint and Bansils answer was that there was no failure and refusal to the request, he
was unable to give the documents due to the fact that (1) it was lost due to the flooding in Pampanga, (2)
lately shown to him by a member of his household (3) complainant did not mention any particularly the
document needed.
Upon absence in the hearing, the commissioners held him administratively liable due to his failure to
attend to the complainant to look into his notarial book and recommended to be suspended for a year.
However, they reduced it to a mere reprimand in their resolution
ISSUE: WON Atty Bansil is violating Code of Professional Ethics
HELD: Respondent is guilty of unprofessional conduct.
Bansil admitted in his answer that in fact he was notified by the clerk of court regarding the request for
verification of notarized documents. However, he have presented such lame excuses. To conclude that he
did simply ignored the request of both the complainant and the clerk of court.
As for his conduct as professional, he should have atleast notified in due time through a call the clerk of
court or the respondent of such loss of the documents. As the records of the case, in the span of 4mos,
the respondent did not take any action nor submitted the required memorandum.
Respondents contention and inaction smacks of arrogance and dereliction of his duty to bring the notarial
books and documents to the Clerk of Court upon request of the latter.
Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that a lawyer shall conduct himself with
courtesy, fairness and candor toward his professional colleagues and shall avoid harassing tactics against
opposing counsel.
Canon 22 of the Canons of Professional Ethics provides that the conduct of a lawyer before the court and
with other lawyers should be characterized by candor and fairness. Indeed, the obligations of a member
of the bar include the observance of honorable, candid and courteous dealing with other lawyers, fidelity
to known and recognized customs and practices of the profession, and performance of duties to the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines.
WHEREFORE, we find respondent Atty. Eddie R. Bansil GUILTY OF UNPROFESSIONAL CONDUCT
and FINED in the amount of Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00), with a warning that a commission
of the same or similar acts in the future will be dealt with more severely.