IN RE: VICENTE Y. BAYANI

The case before us arose when Atty. Vicente Y. Bayani failed to
submit proof of service of the appellant’s brief on the Solicitor
General in G.R. No. 115079^[1] and the consequent inability of the latter to file the appellee’s brief.

On August 09, 1999, the Supreme Court referred Atty. Bayani’s
failure to submit the procedural requirement to the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines for investigation, report and recommendation.^[2]

On September 27, 1999, IBP Commissioner Victoria Gonzalez-De Los
Reyes sent a letter to Atty. Bayani requiring him to submit his comment
within five (5) days from receipt of the letter.^[3]

However, the letter was returned to the IBP with the notation “Return to Sender-Moved.”^[4]

Thus, in her report and recommendation dated January 25, 2000,
Commissioner Gonzalez-De Los Reyes recommended Atty. Bayani’s suspension
as follows:

“IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the undersigned Commissioner recommends
that Atty. Vicente Bayani, for his violation of Rule 18.03 of the Canon
18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, be SUSPENDED from the
practice of the law profession for a period of three (3) months and
until the time he complies with the Order of the Supreme Court.”^[5]

On March 18, 2000, the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines issued a resolution adopting and approving the report
and recommendation of the investigating commissioner.^[6]

We concur.

A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him as his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.^[7]

Atty. Bayani’s failure to submit proof of service of appellant’s
brief on the Solicitor General in G. R. No. 115079 and his failure to
submit the required comment manifest willful disobedience to the lawful
orders of the Supreme Court, a clear violation of the canons of
professional ethics.

It appears that Atty. Bayani has fallen short of the
circumspection required of a member of the Bar. A counsel must always
remember that his actions or omissions are binding on his clients.^[8] A lawyer owes his client the exercise of utmost prudence and capability in that representation.

Further, lawyers are expected to be acquainted with the rudiments
of law and legal procedure, and anyone who deals with them has the
right to expect not just a good amount of professional learning and
competence but also a whole-hearted fealty to his client’s cause.^[9]

WHEREFORE, the Court finds Atty. Vicente Y.
Bayani remiss in his sworn duty to his client, to the Court and the Bar.
He is thus SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of three (3)
months and until the time he complies with the Order of the Supreme
Court to submit the required proof of service in G. R. No. 115079.

Let a copy of this decision be entered in the personal records of
respondent as an attorney and as a member of the Integrated Bar, and
furnish the Bar Confidant, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, with
copies thereof and the Court Administrator for circulation to all courts
in the country.

SO ORDERED.

Davide, Jr., C.J., Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Purisima, Buena, Gonzaga-Reyes, Ynares-Santiago, and De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur.

Bellosillo, J., abroad on official business.

---

^[1] Entitled, People of the Philippines vs. Francisco Albior.

^[2] Rollo, p. 2.

^[3] Rollo, p. 1.

^[4] Rollo, p. 5.

^[5] In CBD Case No. 00-689, Rollo, pp. 8-10.

^[6] Rollo, p. 7.

^[7] Rule 18.03, Canon of Professional Responsibility; Villaluz vs. Armenta, 285 SCRA 1 (1998)

^[8] Torres vs. Orden,
A.C. No. 4646, April 6, 2000, citing Gerard vs. NLRC, 187 SCRA 701
(1990); Diaz-Duarte vs. Ong, 298 SCRA 388 (1998); Kalubiran vs. Court of
Appeals, 300 SCRA 320 (1998); Velasquez vs. Court of Appeals, 309 SCRA
539 (1999).

^[9] Torres vs. Orden, supra, citing Vda. De Alisbo vs. Jalandoon, Sr. 199 SCRA 321 (1991).