8/31/25, 11:26 AM San Gabriel vs.
Sempio
Title
San Gabriel vs. Sempio
Case Decision Date
A.C. No. 12423 Mar 26, 2019
Lawyer suspended for 2 years for neglecting annulment case, failing to act despite
client's payment, violating professional duties; ordered to refund fees.
Jur.ph - Case Digest (A.C. No. 12423)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
Engagement of Services and Payment
Complainant Alfredo San Gabriel engaged respondent Atty. Jonathan T. Sempio in
January 2014 to handle his Nullity Case seeking the annulment of his marriage.
A Contract of Legal Services was entered into, wherein complainant paid
respondent a total of P120,000.00 covering legal fees and all necessary expenses up
to the issuance of the decision in the Nullity Case.
Initiation and Handling of the Nullity Case
After the engagement, respondent duly filed the petition for the nullification of
complainant’s marriage before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malabon City,
Branch 73.
Respondent initially acted on his undertaking by filing the requisite petition and
later a motion for reconsideration, which resulted in the reinstatement of the case
after it had been dismissed for noncompliance with prior court directives.
Alleged Negligence and Subsequent Developments
Complainant received a copy of the RTC Order dated July 2, 2015, which dismissed
the Nullity Case without prejudice due to respondent’s failure to comply with a
previous court order.
Despite assurances from respondent that the issues would be rectified by filing a
motion for reconsideration, subsequent follow-ups by complainant yielded no
substantial progress.
Complainant later discovered that respondent had left the country without prior
notice, effectively resulting in the archiving of the Nullity Case.
https://jur.ph/jurisprudence/v/digest/san-gabriel-v-sempio?q=124235 1/3
8/31/25, 11:26 AM San Gabriel vs. Sempio
Prior Disciplinary History and Claim of Repetition
Complainant alleged that respondent had a history of neglecting his clients’ affairs,
referencing the case Baens v. Sempio in which the Court previously suspended
respondent for similar negligence.
In his defense, respondent claimed he had informed complainant about his
suspension (in the Baens case) and suggested that complainant secure replacement
counsel because his depression (stemming from the suspension) hindered his
ability to handle the Nullity Case.
IBP Investigation and Findings
The Investigating Commissioner (IC) for the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)
conducted an investigation and, in a report dated June 20, 2017, found respondent
administratively liable for violating Canons 15, 17, 18, and Rule 18.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility (CPR).
The IC noted that respondent’s inaction was indefensible given the significant span
of seven months between the filing of the petition and his knowledge of his
suspension, during which no positive action was taken on the case.
Furthermore, even if respondent had advised complainant to secure a replacement
counsel due to his “depression,” he failed to take affirmative steps to facilitate such
replacement.
IBP Resolution
On May 3, 2018, the IBP Board of Governors adopted the IC’s report and
recommendation, ordering respondent’s suspension from the practice of law for a
period of two (2) years.
Issues:
Determination of Administrative Liability
Whether respondent should be held administratively liable for his alleged
negligence in handling complainant’s Nullity Case.
Whether the neglect in progressing the case, despite having secured a significant
legal fee and establishing an attorney-client relationship, constitutes a violation of
the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Adequacy of Respondent’s Defense
Whether respondent’s claim of “depression” caused by his prior suspension, along
with his purported efforts to advise complainant on securing replacement counsel,
absolves him from liability.
https://jur.ph/jurisprudence/v/digest/san-gabriel-v-sempio?q=124235 2/3
8/31/25, 11:26 AM San Gabriel vs. Sempio
Whether the lapse of a seven-month period between critical actions in the case can
be justified by the circumstances he presented.
Appropriate Sanction and Monetary Redress
What should be the imposition of disciplinary sanctions on respondent in view of
his repeated negligent acts, especially considering his prior suspension in the
Baens case.
Whether respondent should be ordered to refund a part of the legal fees paid by
complainant, and if so, the appropriate amount and accompanying interest.
Ruling:
(Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
(Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
(Subscriber-Only)
Note: AI summaries may not capture all details. Please refer to full text for complete accuracy.
https://jur.ph/jurisprudence/v/digest/san-gabriel-v-sempio?q=124235 3/3
