HENRY SAMONTE VS. ATTY.

GINES ABELLANA
AC No. 3452, June 23, 2014

Facts:

Henry Samonte brought an administrative complaint against respondent Atty Gines N.

Abellana who represented him in “Samonte v. Authographics, Inc” of RTC Cebu. Samonte
enumerated acts of professional misconduct: (1) falsification of documents when Abellana made
it appear that complaint was filed on June 10, 1988 when it was actually filed on June 14, 1988
(2) dereliction of duty when Abellana failed to file counterclaim, inform trial court that Samonte
could not be available on a scheduled hearing thereby incurring an unexplained absence
detrimental to the plaintiff and submit an exhibit required by the trial judge only to submit it 3
mos. later, (3) gross negligence and tardiness in attending scheduled hearings and (4) dishonesty
for not issuing official receipts for every cash payments made by Samonte for his court
appearances.

Abellana denied (1) falsification, filing could be made only on June 14 instead of June 10
because Samonte failed to give enough money for filing fee (2) dereliction of duty was baseless
because he filed reply after receiving the answer with counterclaim of the defendants; it was
RTC not him who scheduled the pre-trial; he had informed the RTC of his being stranded or
having attended the arraignment of another client but judge opted not to wait; blamed Samonte
for his inability to submit the formal offer of exhibits as Samonte failed to give the duplicate
originals (3) Samonte is dishonest for giving only filing fees plus Php 2,000.00 in contravention
of their Php 10,000.00 agreement; (4) Samonte’s Motion to Change Counsel was unethical
because latter did not exhibit courtesy of informing him.

Court REFERRED the administrative complaint to IBP. Atty. Abellana filed a Motion to
Quash for lack of interest of Samonte due to his postponement of the hearings. Samonte
requested early hearing to declare his interest, but only Samonte appeared thus they were
requested to submit position papers. IBP ruled that respondent has shown a facility for utilizing
false and deceitful practice as a means to cover-up his delay and lack of diligence in pursuing the
case, and recommends that he be DISBARRED from the practice. IBP Governors SUPENDED
Abellana for ONE YEAR.

Abellana moved for reconsideration on the grounds: (1) the impostion of suspension is
too stiff (2) findings of investigating commissioner is not fully supported with evidence (3)
complaint of the complainant is not corroborated by testimonial evidence so it is hearsay and
self-serving. IBP Governors DENIED the motion.

Issue/s:

Whether Atty. Abellana violated the Code of Professional Conduct?

Ruling:

A lawyer who wilfully resorts to any falsehood in order to mislead the courts or his
clients on the status of their causes exhibits his unworthiness to remain a member of the Law
Profession. This is because he is always expected to be honest and forthright in his dealings with
them. He thereby merits the condign sanction of suspension from the practice of law, if not
disbarment.

These expectations, though high and demanding, are the professional and ethical burdens
of every member of the Philippine Bar for they have been given full expression in the Lawyer’s
Oath that every lawyer has taken upon admission as a bona fide member of the Law Profession.

Atty. Abellana failed the expectations of honesty, integrity, and trustworthiness in his
dealings with Samonte and with the RTC. His explanation that Samonte was the cause of the
belated filing of accounts did not excuse the falsification because his falsification was not
rendered less dishonest and less corrupt by whatever reasons for filing at a later date.

In disciplinary proceedings against lawyers, clearly preponderant evidence is required to

overcome the presumption of innocence in favour of the respondent lawyers. Preponderant
evidence means that the evidence adduced by one side, is, as a whole, superior or has a greater
weight than that of the other. The complainant’s evidence preponderantly established the
administrative sins of Atty. ABellana.

Still, the Court must not close its eyes to the fact that Atty. Abellana actually finished
presenting his client’s case and that the latter initiated the termination of Atty . Abellana’s
engagement as his counsel only after their relationship had been tainted with mistrust. Thus we
determine the proper sanction.

The Court AFFIRMS the resolution of the IBP Board of Governors subject to the
modification that Atty. Gines N. Abellana is SUSPENDED FOR SIX MONTHS FROM THE
PRACTICE OF LAW effective upon receipt of this decision with stern WARNING that any
repetition by him of the same or similar acts will be punished most severely.