THIRD DIVISION

[A.C. No. 10286. April 7, 2014.]

ATTY. RODRIGO B. BUMACTAO , complainant, vs . ATTY. RESTITO F.

FANO , respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated April 7,
2014 , which reads as follows:
"A.C. No. 10286 (Atty. Rodrigo B. Bumactao vs. Atty. Restito F. Fano). —
This involves a disciplinary complaint directly led with the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP) by complainant Atty. Rodrigo B. Bumactao against respondent Atty.
Restito F. Fano.
In his complaint, 1 Atty. Bumactao charged Atty. Fano with gross misconduct for
having supposedly made a false representation in a pleading and a motion that the latter
filed with the Department of Labor and Employment.
Atty. Fano was the counsel for Nagkakaisang Manggagawa sa JJPNB Transport
Services-Kapisanan sa Kapakanan ng Manggagawang Pilipino (KAKAMPI), a petitioner in
proceedings relating to the "Petition for Certi cation Election of the Rank and File Workers
of JJPNB Transport Service" (petition for certi cation election) docketed as Case No.
NCR-QC-CE-02-20-5-11 and Case No. QC-CE-02-17-6-11. 2
Atty. Bumactao alleged that Atty. Fano indicated "MCLE Compliance No. III-
0018308" in two submissions to the Department of Labor and Employment: rst,
KAKAMPI's "Reply to Respondent's Comment/Opposition" 3 dated August 17, 2011;
second, KAKAMPI's "Motion for Deferment of Certi cation Election," 4 also dated August
17, 2011. Supported by a certi cation issued by the Mandatory Continuing Legal
Education (MCLE) O ce 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
In his answer, 8 Atty. Fano admitted to having indicated "MCLE Compliance No. III-
0018308" on both the reply and the motion. Moreover, he admitted that it "is actually MCLE
Compliance No. II -0018308," 9 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
representation of the MCLE providers whose MCLE seminars he had attended (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 two (2) units of Legal Ethics and two (2) units of Trial Procedure. He
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 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 nding 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 which is so gross
as to warrant 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 IBP 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 certi cation election by submitting a de cient
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 which a lawyer must follow
as demanded by the virtues of his profession shall 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
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 No. III-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 led before the courts or quasi-judicial bodies; the number and
date of issue of their MCLE Certi cate of Compliance or Certi cate 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 le 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 o cer 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
responsible lawyer is expected to supervise the work in his o ce with respect to
all the pleadings to be led in court and he should not delegate this responsibility,
lock, stock and barrel, to his o ce 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. 2 0

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 de cient 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.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 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.

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].
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 20. Id. at 610.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com