G.R. No. A.C. No. 5417, March 31, 2006
Amador Z. Malhabour, Complainant, vs. Atty. Alberti R. Sarmiento, Respondent

FACTS

Complainant Amador Malhabour engaged respondent Atty. Alberti Sarmiento, a former Public Attorney’s Office lawyer, to represent him in a labor case for illegal dismissal. The Court of Appeals rendered a Resolution modifying the monetary award in Malhabour’s favor. Malhabour instructed Sarmiento to file a motion for reconsideration, but the latter advised against it and instead filed only a notice of intention. Malhabour filed the motion himself, but it was denied for being late. He then urged Sarmiento to file a petition for review with the Supreme Court, which the lawyer delayed, resulting in its denial for tardiness.
Unknown to Malhabour, Sarmiento had simultaneously filed a Motion for Execution with the NLRC, attaching a Special Power of Attorney purportedly authorizing him to receive the judgment award. The NLRC issued a check for P99,490.00 payable to Malhabour but delivered to Sarmiento, who deposited it into his personal account. Malhabour discovered this execution only later. After a confrontation at the NBI, Sarmiento partially restituted the amount but failed to pay the full balance, prompting this disbarment complaint.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Atty. Sarmiento violated the Code of Professional Responsibility warranting disciplinary action.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court found respondent guilty of gross misconduct and suspended him from the practice of law for one year. The legal logic is anchored on the fundamental duty of lawyers to uphold the law and serve their clients with fidelity. Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility prohibits lawyers from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct. Sarmiento’s actions constituted a clear breach.
His failure to follow his client’s explicit instructions to file timely pleadings demonstrated neglect and incompetence, prejudicing Malhabour’s legal remedies. More egregiously, Sarmiento’s act of securing the execution and misappropriating the judgment award by depositing it into his personal account under a purported Special Power of Attorney, without his client’s knowledge and consent, was an act of dishonesty and deceit. This conduct betrayed the trust inherent in the attorney-client relationship and undermined the integrity of the legal profession. The Court emphasized that a lawyer’s duty is to be a guardian of law and justice; Sarmiento’s actions fell severely short of this exacting standard, necessitating administrative sanction to protect the public and preserve the honor of the bar.