56

RENERIO SAMBAJON, RONALD SAMBAJON, CRISANTO CONOS, and FREDILYN BACULBAS vs. ATTY.
JOSE A. SUING

[A.C. No. 7062. September 26, 2006.]

Facts:

Complainants filed before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) have sought the disbarment of
Atty. Jose Suing on the grounds of deceit, malpractice, violation of Lawyer's Oath and the Code of
Professional Responsibility.

Complainants are parties to a previous labor case in which the Atty. Suing is the counsel of their
employer Microplast, Inc. A judgment in favor of them was rendered by the Labor Arbiter and a writ
of execution was issued against Microplast, Inc.

Four of the seven complainants who purportedly executed the Release Waiver and Quitclaims denied
having signed and sworn to before the Labor Arbiter the said documents or having received the
considerations therefor. Hence, they subsequently filed an administrative complaint alleging that
respondent, acting in collusion with his clients Johnny and Manuel Rodil, frustrated the
implementation of the Writ of Execution by presenting before the Labor Arbiter the spurious
documents.

Moreover, respondent attempted to influence the answers of his client Manuel Rodil when the latter
testified before Commissioner Manuel Hababag.

Issue:

Whether or not respondent can be disbarred for his alleged manipulation of four alleged RELEASE
WAIVER AND QUITCLAIM by complainants.

Held:

No. Instead, the respondent is found guilty of negligence and gross misconduct. The Court says that a
lawyer serves his client with diligence by adopting that norm of practice expected of men of good
intentions.

CANON 12. A lawyer shall exert every effort and consider it his duty to assist in the speedy and
efficient administration of justice.

Any act on the lawyers part that tends to obstruct, perverts or impedes the administration of justice
constitutes misconduct. While the Commission on Bar Discipline is not a court, the proceedings
therein are nonetheless part of a judicial proceeding, a disciplinary action being in reality an
investigation by the Court into the misconduct of its officers or an examination into his character.
The respondent is likewise 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.