In Carlina P. Robiñol v. Atty. Edilberto P. Bassig, the Supreme Court addressed the administrative liability of a lawyer who disregarded orders from the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). While the initial complaint against Atty. Bassig—failure to pay rent—was dismissed due to inadmissible evidence, the Court found him liable for violating Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Court emphasized that attorneys must respect legal institutions, including the IBP, which is empowered to conduct disciplinary proceedings. The decision underscores an attorney’s duty to comply with the directives of such bodies, reinforcing the importance of maintaining respect for the legal profession’s regulatory framework. Atty. Bassig was fined P10,000.00, serving as a warning against similar misconduct.

Rent Disputes and Respect: When a Lawyer’s Conduct Falls Short

The case began with Carlina Robiñol’s complaint against Atty. Edilberto Bassig for failing to pay rent. Robiñol alleged that Atty. Bassig rented her house in Marikina City for P8,500.00 per month, but he repeatedly made late payments and eventually stopped paying altogether. According to Robiñol, Atty. Bassig even signed a promissory note acknowledging his debt of P127,500.00, yet he still failed to fulfill his obligation. These allegations led Robiñol to file a disbarment case against Atty. Bassig, citing violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility and his Lawyer’s Oath.

The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) investigated the complaint, leading to several mandatory conferences. However, Atty. Bassig failed to appear at these conferences and did not file a verified answer to the complaint. Consequently, the IBP-Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) expunged his unverified answer. Despite being directed to file a position paper, Atty. Bassig ignored this directive as well. The IBP-CBD recommended that Atty. Bassig be suspended from the practice of law for two years, a recommendation that the IBP Board of Governors adopted, noting a prior similar sanction against him.

The Supreme Court, in its review, acknowledged the complainant’s burden to prove the allegations with substantial evidence. The Court scrutinized the evidence presented by Robiñol, noting that the receipts and promissory note submitted were mere photocopies. Citing Section 5, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, the Court emphasized the requirement for original documents or, in their absence, a proper foundation for the admission of secondary evidence. The provision states:

SEC.5 When original document is unavailable. – When the original document has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, the offeror, upon proof of its execution or existence and the cause of its unavailability without bad faith on his part, may prove its contents by a copy, or by a recital of its contents in some authentic document, or by the testimony of witnesses in the order stated.

In the absence of such a foundation, the photocopies were deemed inadmissible. The Court referenced Country Bankers Insurance Corporation v. Antonio Lagman, reinforcing the prerequisites for admitting secondary evidence: the existence or due execution of the original, its loss or destruction, and the absence of bad faith on the part of the offeror. Robiñol’s failure to meet these requirements undermined her case.

The Court also addressed the implications of Atty. Bassig’s failure to file a verified answer and attend the mandatory conferences. While these omissions could not be construed as an admission of the allegations, the Court noted that Section 5, Rule V of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission on Bar Discipline of the IBP clearly outlines the consequences of non-compliance:

Section 5. Non-appearance of parties, and Non-verification of Pleadings.— a) Non-appearance at the mandatory conference or at the clarificatory questioning date shall be deemed a waiver of the right to participate in the proceedings. Ex parte conference or hearings shall then be conducted. Pleadings submitted or filed which are not verified shall not be given weight by the Investigating Commissioner.

Although disciplinary proceedings against lawyers are sui generis, compliance with basic rules of evidence remains essential. The Court underscored that these proceedings, while not strictly civil or criminal, still require adherence to evidentiary standards. The Court held that the failure to present admissible evidence was critical to its decision on the rental complaint. Thus, the Supreme Court clarified that despite the unique nature of disciplinary proceedings, basic rules on evidence must be observed.

Despite the dismissal of the initial complaint, the Supreme Court did not exonerate Atty. Bassig entirely. The Court highlighted his repeated failure to comply with the IBP’s orders—failing to file a verified answer, attend mandatory conferences, and submit a position paper. The Court stated this behavior constituted a violation of Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which mandates that lawyers maintain respect for the courts and judicial officers:

Canon 11 – A lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and to judicial officers and should insist on similar conduct by others.

The Supreme Court emphasized that Atty. Bassig’s conduct reflected a lack of respect not only for the IBP’s rules and regulations but also for the IBP as an institution. The Court underscored that the IBP is empowered to conduct proceedings regarding the discipline of lawyers, and as such, members of the bar must respect its authority. By disregarding the IBP’s directives, Atty. Bassig failed to meet his duty as an officer of the court.

The Court noted that lawyers are particularly called upon to obey court orders and processes, standing foremost in complying with court directives as officers of the court. The Supreme Court views the conduct of Atty. Bassig as unbecoming of a lawyer, highlighting the contradiction between his actions and his sworn duty as an officer of the court.

In light of these considerations, the Supreme Court imposed a fine of P10,000.00 on Atty. Bassig. This penalty served as a sanction for his neglect in maintaining acceptable deportment as a member of the bar. The Court also issued a stern warning, indicating that any future commission of similar offenses would result in a more severe penalty. The Court made clear that respect for legal institutions and compliance with their directives are non-negotiable for members of the legal profession.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether Atty. Bassig should be held administratively liable for failing to pay rent and for disregarding orders from the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). The Supreme Court focused on the latter, emphasizing a lawyer’s duty to respect and comply with IBP directives.
Why was the initial complaint about unpaid rent dismissed?	The initial complaint was dismissed because the complainant, Robiñol, presented photocopies of receipts and a promissory note without establishing the unavailability of the original documents. This violated the Rules of Court regarding the admissibility of secondary evidence.
What is the significance of Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility in this case?	Canon 11 requires lawyers to observe and maintain respect for the courts and judicial officers. Atty. Bassig’s failure to comply with the IBP’s orders was deemed a violation of this canon, as it showed disrespect for a body authorized by the Court to conduct disciplinary proceedings.
What penalty did Atty. Bassig receive?	Atty. Bassig was fined P10,000.00 and given a stern warning. The Supreme Court indicated that any future similar misconduct would result in a more severe penalty.
What does sui generis mean in the context of disciplinary proceedings?	Sui generis means “of its own kind” or “unique.” In the context of disciplinary proceedings against lawyers, it means the proceedings are neither purely civil nor purely criminal but have their own distinct characteristics and rules.
What is the role of the IBP in disciplinary cases?	The IBP, through its Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD), investigates complaints against lawyers and makes recommendations to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ultimately decides on the appropriate disciplinary action.
What is the evidentiary standard in disbarment proceedings?	The evidentiary standard in disbarment proceedings is substantial evidence. This means that the complainant must present enough relevant evidence to persuade a reasonable mind that the allegations are true.
Can a lawyer’s failure to respond to IBP orders be used against them?	Yes, while it may not be taken as an admission of the allegations, a lawyer’s failure to comply with IBP orders—such as filing a verified answer or attending mandatory conferences—can be considered a sign of disrespect for the legal profession and its regulatory bodies, leading to administrative sanctions.

This case underscores the importance of respecting legal institutions and complying with their directives, particularly for members of the bar. While the initial complaint was dismissed due to evidentiary issues, the Supreme Court did not hesitate to sanction Atty. Bassig for his failure to respect the IBP. This serves as a crucial reminder that adherence to procedural rules and respect for the legal profession’s governing bodies are paramount.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: CARLINA P. ROBIÑOL v. ATTY. EDILBERTO P. BASSIG, A.C. No. 11836, November 21, 2017