SECOND DIVISION
[A.C. No. 9250. July 27, 2016.]
[Formerly CBD No. 10-2629]
CARMELITA M. AGUSTIN, complainant, vs. ATTY. REBENE C. CARRERA, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 27 July 2016 which reads as follows:
"A.C. No. 9250 [Formerly CBD No. 10-2629] — Carmelita M. Agustin v. Atty. Rebene C. Carrera
On February 25, 2010, Carmelita M. Agustin (complainant), for and in behalf of her brother, Dioveni Agustin (Dioveni), filed a complaint for disbarment 1 before the Commission on Bar Discipline Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) against Atty. Rebene C. Carrera (Atty. Carrera) for violating Canon 12 and Rule 12.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).
Sometime in 2006, Dioveni and his wife, Erlinda Agustin (Spouses Agustin), engaged Atty. Carrera to represent them in filing a complaint for permanent disability benefits against Centennial Transmarine, Inc. (CTI). On December 15, 2007, Dioveni, through a letter, terminated the services of Atty. Carrera and he manifested the same before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). On January 30, 2009, the NLRC rendered a decision in favor of Dioveni ordering CTI to pay him permanent disability benefits in the amount of US$75,000.00, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney's fees. The said decision became final and executory and the corresponding Entry of Judgment was issued. Dioveni filed an Urgent Motion for the Issuance of a Writ of Execution but Atty. Carrera filed a Motion to Recognize and Enforce his Attorney's Lien in the case which was denied by the NLRC. Atty. Carrera filed an appeal with a prayer for the issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order with the NLRC. 2 Hence, the present complaint was instituted asserting that Atty. Carrera disregarded his duties as a lawyer when he filed his appeal, which was intended to delay the execution of the judgment.
In his verified Answer, 3 Atty. Carrera averred that he was engaged as counsel by the spouses Agustin on a contingent basis in the permanent disability case before the NLRC. During the pendency of the case, Dioveni suffered from severe illness but he had no money to spend for his medication, so out of compassion and upon the request of latter, he extended financial loans amounting to P180,000.00 in order to sustain his medication. Unfortunately, his loans were so huge that Atty. Carrera could no longer extend him another loan. It was for this reason that Dioveni decided to terminate his services. Atty. Carrera, nonetheless, constantly followed up the proceedings of the case and it was through his efforts that a favorable judgment was rendered in their favor. For said reason, he posited that his act of enforcing his attorney's lien was justified and in accordance with the retainer agreement as he exerted too much effort and incurred expenses to protect his client's interest.
Atty. Carrera asserted that during the conference for settlement before the NLRC, Dioveni already settled with him and paid the financial loans in the amount of P180,000.00 without interest and attorney's fees in the amount of P220,000.00. He accepted the same for compassion and humanitarian reasons even if the amount was far below the agreed amount.
Furthermore, Atty. Carrera averred that complainant had no standing to question his credibility as a lawyer because the retainer agreement was between him and the spouses Agustin. He assailed that the complainant had no special power of attorney to institute the present complaint and that the same was merely a scheme to deprive him of his legitimate attorney's fees. TIADCc
In her Report and Recommendation, 4 dated August 19, 2010, Commissioner Rebecca Villanueva-Maala (Investigating Commissioner), recommended that the complaint for disbarment against Atty. Carrera be dismissed for lack of merit. She opined that Atty. Carrera was entitled to recover from Spouses Agustin the full compensation stipulated in the retainer agreement as the termination of his legal services was without justifiable cause. It likewise considered that the complainant had no written authority from Spouses Agustin to institute the complaint and that the issues between him and Dioveni had been settled after the latter agreed and paid the financial loans and attorney's fees.
In its Resolution No. XIX-2011-200, dated May 14, 2011, the IBP-Board of Governors (Board) adopted and approved with modification the recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner, as follows:
RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby unanimously ADOPTED and APPROVED, with modification, the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner in the above-entitled case, herein made part of this Resolution as Annex "A", and finding the recommendation to be fully supported by the evidence on record and applicable laws and rules, and considering that the complaint lacks merit, the same is hereby DISMISSED. However, Atty. Rebene C. Carrera is sternly Warned to refrain from entering into a contract involving attorney's fees more than what the law allows.
The IBP, in a Letter, 5 dated September 19, 2011, transmitted before the Court the records of the case.
In a Resolution, 6 dated December 5, 2011, the Court considered the case closed and terminated as no petition for review has been filed.
On January 20, 2012, complainant filed before the Court a petition for review 7 praying for the reversal of the IBP resolution and for the return of the amount of P400,000.00, which she claimed she was forced to pay, and the return of the seaman's handbook.
On June 4, 2014, complainant filed a Manifestation and Motion 8 to recall the December 5, 2011 Resolution of the Court and for leave to admit the attached motion for reconsideration on the ground that she was not furnished a copy of the IBP Resolution.
In its Consolidated Comment, 9 the IBP did not object to the motion and manifestation considering that indeed, upon verification, complainant and her counsel did not receive a copy of the Resolution.
The Court's Ruling
The Court finds the petition for review to be of no merit and adopts the findings and recommendation of the IBP.
It must be emphasized that a retainer contract is the law that governs the relationship between a client and a lawyer. Unless expressly stipulated, rendition of professional services by a lawyer, whether such service was solicited or offered to the client, is for a fee or compensation and is not gratuitous. 10 Rule 20.01 of Canon 20 of the CPR specifically provides guidelines in the determination of attorney's fees, thus:
Rule 20.01 — A lawyer shall be guided by the following factors in determining his fees:
(a) the time spent and the extent of the service rendered or required;
(b) the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved;
(c) The importance of the subject matter;
(d) The skill demanded;
(e) The probability of losing other employment as a result of acceptance of the proffered case; AIDSTE
(f) The customary charges for similar services and the schedule of fees of the IBP chapter to which he belongs;
(g) The amount involved in the controversy and the benefits resulting to the client from the service;
(h) The contingency or certainty of compensation;
(i) The character of the employment, whether occasional or established; and
(j) The professional standing of the lawyer.
Likewise, Section 26, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court permits a client to terminate the legal services of his counsel with or without justifiable cause but the former shall be liable to pay compensation in either case. It provides:
Section 26. Change of attorneys. — An attorney may retire at any time from any action or special proceeding, by the written consent of his client filed in court. He may also retire at any time from an action or special proceeding, without the consent of his client, should the court, on notice to the client and attorney, and on hearing, determine that he ought to be allowed to retire. In case of substitution, the name of the attorney newly employed shall be entered on the docket of the court in place of the former one, and written notice of the change shall be given to the adverse party.
A client may at any time dismiss his attorney or substitute another in his place, but if the contract between client and attorney has been reduced to writing and the dismissal of the attorney was without justifiable cause, he shall be entitled to recover from the client the full compensation stipulated in the contract. However, the attorney may, in the discretion of the court, intervene in the case to protect his rights. For the payment of his compensation, the attorney shall have a lien upon all judgments for the payment of money, and executions issued in pursuance of such judgment, rendered in the case wherein his services had been retained by the client. [Emphasis supplied]
It is settled that in administrative proceedings, the burden of proof that respondent committed the act complained of rests on the complainant and in order for the court to exercise its disciplinary powers, the case against the respondent must be established by clear, convincing, and satisfactory proof. 11 Thus, the respondent must be exonerated if the complainant fails to establish his case by the required quantum of proof.
In the present case, there is no factual basis to hold Atty. Carrera administratively liable. The Court agrees that Atty. Carrera had the right to be paid for the legal services he had extended to his client. Considering that his legal services was discharged without any justifiable cause, he should be entitled to the full compensation as agreed upon in the Retainer Agreement. Moreover, the Court notes that both Dioveni and Atty. Carrera had settled this issue before the NLRC. Dioveni agreed to pay Atty. Carrera his attorney's fees in the amount of P220,000.00. In addition, complainant, who was not specifically authorized by spouses Agustin, has no standing to file the subject administrative complaint.
WHEREFORE, the Court resolves to ADOPT and APPROVE the findings of fact, conclusions of law and recommendations of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines-Commission on Bar Discipline in its Report and Recommendation, which the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines likewise adopted and approved with modification.
The complaint against Atty. Rebene C. Carrera is DISMISSED for lack of merit.
Accordingly, the case is considered CLOSED and TERMINATED.
SO ORDERED." AaCTcI
Very truly yours,
MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 1-6.
2. Id. at 1-3.
3. Id. at 84-101.
4. Id. at 233-239.
5. Id. at 230.
6. Id. at 240.
7. Id. at 241-256.
8. Id. at 340-343.
9. Id.
10. Camacho v. Court of Appeals, 544 Phil. 178 (2007).
11. Noriega v. Sison, 210 Phil. 236 (1983).