12. FEDERICO D. RICAFORT, complainant, vs. ATTY. EDDIE R. BANSIL, respondent.

(CANON 8) FACTS: Ricafort requested the clerk of court to send word to Bansil that he wanted to verify notarized documents by Bansil and to bring the the same to the office of clerk of court. (respondent submitted his notarial book
and documents but the same were returned to him for safekeeping considering that there was no space in the Office of the Clerk of Court to accommodate the notarial books and documents. However, they are required to bring them to the Clerk of Court when needed for

Atty. Bacani, the clerk of court has repeatedly called up Bansil regarding the request but to no avail. This prompted Ricafort to send letter to Bansil but still failed and refused to request without justifiable reason nor responded.
inspection/verification of documents upon request)

Ricafort filed a complaint and Bansils answer was that there was no failure and refusal to the request, he was unable to give the documents due to the fact that (1) it was lost due to the flooding in Pampanga, (2) lately shown to him by a member of his household (3) complainant did not mention any particularly the document needed. Upon absence in the hearing, the commissioners held him administratively liable due to his failure to attend to the complainant to look into his notarial book and recommended to be suspended for a year. However, they reduced it to a mere reprimand in their resolution ISSUE: WON Atty Bansil is violating Code of Professional Ethics HELD: Respondent is guilty of unprofessional conduct. Bansil admitted in his answer that in fact he was notified by the clerk of court regarding the request for verification of notarized documents. However, he have presented such lame excuses. To conclude that he did simply ignored the request of both the complainant and the clerk of court. As for his conduct as professional, he should have atleast notified in due time through a call the clerk of court or the respondent of such loss of the documents. As the records of the case, in the span of 4mos, the respondent did not take any action nor submitted the required memorandum. Respondents contention and inaction smacks of arrogance and dereliction of his duty to bring the notarial books and documents to the Clerk of Court upon request of the latter. Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that a lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy, fairness and candor toward his professional colleagues and shall avoid harassing tactics against opposing counsel. Canon 22 of the Canons of Professional Ethics provides that the conduct of a lawyer before the court and with other lawyers should be characterized by candor and fairness. Indeed, the obligations of a member of the bar include the observance of honorable, candid and courteous dealing with other lawyers, fidelity to known and recognized customs and practices of the profession, and performance of duties to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. WHEREFORE, we find respondent Atty. Eddie R. Bansil GUILTY OF UNPROFESSIONAL CONDUCT and FINED in the amount of Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00), with a warning that a commission of the same or similar acts in the future will be dealt with more severely.