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 led 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 Certication Election of the
Rank and File Workers of JJPNB Transport Service" (petition for certication
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 Certication Election," 4 also
dated August 17, 2011. Supported by a certication issued by the Mandatory
Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) Oce 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 ocer. 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
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 (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 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 certication election by submitting a decient 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 ocer 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
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 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 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 ocer
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 Certicate of Compliance or Certicate
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 ocer aords him no relief. As this court has
stated in Gutierrez v. Zulueta: 19
The explanation given by the respondent lawyer to the eect 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 oce with
respect to all the pleadings to be led in court and he should not delegate
this responsibility, lock, stock and barrel, to his oce 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 oce secretary.
Such situation will not be countenanced by this Court. 20

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com

 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 decient 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 eectively compelled them to
bear the burden of summarily perfunctorily losing remedies through a formally
decient 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.
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.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 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 Busios 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].

20. Id. at 610.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com