The Supreme Court’s decision in Spouses Nerie S. Asuncion and Cristita B. Asuncion v. Atty. Edilberto P. Bassig underscores the paramount importance of honesty and integrity in the legal profession. The Court found Atty. Bassig culpable for violating the Code of Professional Responsibility and his oath as a lawyer by filing a complaint on behalf of a deceased individual. This ruling reinforces that lawyers must conduct themselves with utmost probity, ensuring the integrity of the legal process. The case highlights the disciplinary measures that can be taken against legal professionals who engage in deceitful practices or fail to uphold their ethical obligations, thereby safeguarding the public’s trust in the legal system.

Deceit in Representation: Can an Attorney Claim Ignorance When Representing a Deceased Client?

This case began when Spouses Nerie and Cristita Asuncion filed a disbarment complaint against Atty. Edilberto Bassig. The core of the complaint was that Atty. Bassig had violated his oath as a lawyer by representing a deceased individual, Fidel Cabangon, in a legal matter. Specifically, Atty. Bassig filed a complaint for annulment of original titles and damages on behalf of Cabangon, who, as the Asuncions demonstrated with a death certificate, had already passed away two years prior to the filing. This act, the Asuncions argued, constituted deceit and gross misconduct, warranting disciplinary action against Atty. Bassig.

The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) investigated the matter. Despite being ordered to submit a verified answer, Atty. Bassig failed to do so. The IBP-CBD proceeded with an ex-parte hearing. Commissioner Suzette A. Mamon found Atty. Bassig guilty of violating Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Section 3, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, which pertains to the lawyer’s oath. The Commissioner highlighted that Atty. Bassig should have verified the status of his client before filing the complaint and that representing a deceased person was, in itself, an act of deceit and fraud.

The IBP Board of Governors adopted Commissioner Mamon’s recommendation and imposed a penalty of suspension from the practice of law for two years. Atty. Bassig filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing that he was unaware of Cabangon’s death and had relied on a person claiming to be Cabangon’s agent. He argued that the agent provided documents that appeared valid and concealed Cabangon’s death. He claimed the penalty was too harsh, given his lack of knowledge about the misrepresentation. The IBP-Board denied Atty. Bassig’s motions, affirming the original decision. The case then reached the Supreme Court for final resolution.

The Supreme Court affirmed the IBP’s findings and underscored the ethical responsibilities of lawyers. The Court emphasized that lawyers are duty-bound to uphold the law and conduct themselves with honesty and integrity. The decision reiterates that maintaining good moral character is essential for a lawyer’s standing in the profession and for preserving public trust. According to the Court, the act of filing a complaint with a false representation regarding the plaintiff’s status indicated either ill intent or gross incompetence on Atty. Bassig’s part, neither of which was excusable.

In its analysis, the Supreme Court addressed Atty. Bassig’s defense of relying on a supposed agent. The Court found his reliance on an unnamed agent, without requiring a written authorization, to be grossly negligent. The absence of due diligence in verifying the client’s status was a critical factor in the Court’s decision. Even if Atty. Bassig’s claims were to be considered, the Court noted that he failed to rectify the error in court after being informed of Cabangon’s death. The Court referenced previous sanctions against Atty. Bassig for similar behavior, specifically his refusal to obey IBP orders, further emphasizing the pattern of misconduct.

The Court found Atty. Bassig guilty of violating Rule 1.01 of Canon 1, Canon 10, and Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, as well as his lawyer’s oath. The specific violations are:

• Rule 1.01 of Canon 1: “A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.”
• Canon 10: “A lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to the court.”
• 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.”

These rules collectively ensure that lawyers act with integrity, honesty, and respect for the legal system. The penalty of suspension from the practice of law for two years was deemed appropriate. The Court explicitly stated that repeating such actions would result in more severe penalties. This ruling sends a clear message about the importance of ethical conduct in the legal profession. It reaffirms that lawyers must diligently verify information and act with candor toward the court and their clients.

FAQs

What was the central issue in this case?	The core issue was whether Atty. Bassig violated his ethical duties as a lawyer by filing a complaint on behalf of a deceased person, thereby engaging in deceitful conduct.
What did the IBP recommend as a penalty?	The IBP recommended that Atty. Bassig be suspended from the practice of law for two years, a recommendation that the Supreme Court ultimately affirmed.
What was Atty. Bassig’s defense?	Atty. Bassig claimed he was unaware of Cabangon’s death and relied on a supposed agent who provided seemingly valid documents and concealed the death.
Why did the Supreme Court reject Atty. Bassig’s defense?	The Court found that Atty. Bassig was grossly negligent in relying on an unnamed agent without proper authorization and in failing to verify his client’s status.
What specific rules did Atty. Bassig violate?	Atty. Bassig violated Rule 1.01 of Canon 1, Canon 10, and Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, as well as his oath as a lawyer.
What is the significance of this case for lawyers?	This case emphasizes the importance of honesty, integrity, and due diligence in the legal profession and serves as a reminder that lawyers must verify information and act with candor.
Can a lawyer delegate the responsibility of verifying client information to an agent?	No, this case shows that lawyers cannot blindly rely on agents. They have a personal responsibility to ensure the accuracy of information presented to the court.
What is the potential consequence for lawyers who engage in deceitful conduct?	Lawyers who engage in deceitful conduct may face disciplinary actions, including suspension from the practice of law or, in more severe cases, disbarment.
How does this case impact the public’s perception of the legal profession?	By holding lawyers accountable for their actions, this case reinforces the importance of ethical behavior and helps maintain public trust in the legal system.

This case underscores the judiciary’s commitment to upholding the ethical standards of the legal profession. Attorneys must exercise due diligence and uphold their duty to the courts. By imposing sanctions for misrepresentation and deceit, the Supreme Court reinforces that honesty and integrity are the cornerstones of legal practice.

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: SPOUSES NERIE S. ASUNCION AND CRISTITA B. ASUNCION, COMPLAINANTS, V. ATTY. EDILBERTO P. BASSIG, RESPONDENT., A.C. No. 11830, July 30, 2019