SECOND DIVISION
[A.C. No. 9934. November 15, 2021.]
ISAGANI DG. ALCANTARA, complainant, vs.ATTY. LOURDES P. BENIPAYO, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated15 November 2021which reads as follows: HTcADC
"A.C. No. 9934 (Isagani DG. Alcantara v. Atty. Lourdes P. Benipayo). — This is a complaint 1 for disbarment filed by complainant Isagani DG. Alcantara (Alcantara) against respondent Atty. Lourdes P. Benipayo (Atty. Benipayo) for violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
The facts are of record.
On September 13, 2011, 19 project employees, represented by Atty. Benipayo, filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against Will Decena and Associates, Inc. (WDAI) before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) docketed as NLRC-NCR Case No. 09-14027-11. 2 On October 12, 2011, two more employees of WDAI, Roberto Bon and Juanito Deloso, and who were likewise represented by Atty. Benipayo, filed an illegal dismissal case against WDAI docketed as NLRC-NCR Case No. 10-15616-11. These two cases were subsequently consolidated. Prior to the two consolidated complaints, four cases were already filed by the same complainants against WDAI. 3
Complainant Alcantara, vice-president for administration of WDAI, alleged that Atty. Benipayo instigated several of its employees to file illegal dismissal complaints against WDAI thus committing forum-shopping. Alcantara also claimed that during the hearing on January 16, 2013 before the Department of Labor and Employment-National Capital Region (DOLE-NCR), Atty. Benipayo yelled at him in front of the hearing officer saying ''Shut up! You are not allowed to speak here!" Lastly, Alcantara alleged that Atty. Benipayo also committed ethical misconduct when she continued to appear as counsel for the complainants in the labor cases despite their having been represented by another lawyer, Atty. Ramon Rana. 4
For her part, Atty. Benipayo denied the allegations of Alcantara. She averred that she was engaged as counsel for the complainants in NLRC-NCR Case Nos. 09-14027-11 and 10-15616-11 only in January 2012, or after the labor complaints were filed. Together with her entry of appearance, she also filed a motion to withdraw the participation of her clients in another labor cases that were already pending before Labor Arbiter Corazon Borbolla. Thus, no forum-shopping was committed due to her clients' withdrawal as complainants. 5
Atty. Benipayo also countered that the complainants in the two subject labor cases were not represented by Atty. Rana contrary to Alcantara's claim. In fact, the two labor complaints were filed by the employees of WDAI without any representation of a counsel. 6
Lastly, Atty. Benipayo denied yelling at Alcantara during the hearing before the DOLE-NCR. In support of her denial, she presented the affidavit 7 of Atty. Cesar Petate, the Mediator-Arbiter, stating that no such unruly incident happened during the hearing; on the contrary, the conference was conducted peacefully. 8
Report and Recommendation of
In a Report and Recommendation 9 dated November 15, 2018, the Investigating Commissioner recommended the dismissal of the complaint. The Investigating Commissioner found that Atty. Benipayo did not commit forum-shopping and did not instigate the employees of WDAI to file complaints against WDAI. The Investigating Commissioner noted that Atty. Benipayo was engaged as counsel for complainants only four months after they filed their complaints before the NLRC. Upon learning that complainants may have inadvertently committed forum-shopping, Atty. Benipayo filed a motion to withdraw the participation of the concerned complainants, together with her entry of appearance. 10
Anent Alcantara's claim that Atty. Benipayo yelled at him during one of the hearings before the DOLE-NCR, the hearing officer himself, Atty. Cesar Petate, executed an affidavit attesting that no untoward incident happened. The hearing was conducted in an orderly and cordial manner, and that Atty. Benipayo never made any remarks against Alcantara.
The IBP Board of Governors (IBP Board), in its October 12, 2019 Resolution, 11 approved and adopted the findings of the Investigating Commissioner, to wit:
RESOLVED to APPROVE and ADOPT, as it is hereby APPROVED and ADOPTED, 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 fully supported by the evidence on record and the applicable laws and rules, the case is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. 12
Our Ruling
Upon a careful review of the records, the Court adopts the findings and recommendation of the IBP.
In administrative proceedings, like disbarment, the quantum of proof necessary for a finding of guilt is substantial evidence, which is that amount of relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. 13 The Court will only exercise its disciplinary powers if complainant has sufficiently proved that respondent lawyer has transgressed his/her Lawyer's Oath and the CPR. 14
ln the case at bench, Atty. Benipayo neither committed forum-shopping nor unduly represented the complainants in the labor cases. As aptly found by the IBP, complainants in the two subject labor cases were not represented by any counsel when they filed the complaints against WDAI. It was only four months after the filing of the said complaints did they hire Atty. Benipayo as counsel. Surely, it is highly impossible for the respondent lawyer to instigate the complainants to file cases against WDAI especially in the absence of proof to support the same. Moreover, Atty. Benipayo had duly observed the rules on forum-shopping when upon entering her appearance for the complainants, she dutifully filed a motion to withdraw the participation of her clients in the pending labor complaints.
Alcantara's claim that Atty. Benipayo shouted at him during the mediation hearing before DOLE-NCR also deserves scant consideration absent any substantial evidence to support the same. On the contrary, Atty. Petate, attested that the hearing was conducted in an orderly and peaceful manner.
Thus, no administrative liability can be imputed against Atty. Benipayo on the basis of the bare charges made by Alcantara. Indeed, a lawyer may be disbarred or suspended for any misconduct which reflects fault or deficiency in his/her moral character, probity or good demeanor. However, a lawyer's guilt cannot be presumed. 15 "Allegation is never equivalent to proof, and a bare charge cannot be equated with liability." 16
ACCORDINGLY, the administrative complaint against Atty. Lourdes P. Benipayo is DISMISSED for lack of merit. Let this case be considered CLOSED and TERMINATED.
SO ORDERED."(S.A.J. Perlas-Bernabe, on official leave; J. Hernando, Acting Chairperson per Special Order No. 2855 dated November 10, 2021.)
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 2-5.
2.Id. at 2.
3.Id. at 2-3.
4.Id. at 4.
5.Id. at 144-149.
6.Id.
7.Rollo, p. 207.
8.Id. at 144-149.
9.Id. at 423-427.
10.Id. at 424-426.
11.Id. at 421-422.
12.Id. at 421.
13.Carlos v. Reyes II, A.C. No. 11764 (Notice), September 23, 2020, citing Atty. Aguirre v. Atty. Reyes, A.C. No. 4355, January 8, 2020.
14.Spouses Dumdum v. Algarra, A.C. No. 12943 (Notice), September 13, 2021.
15.Balistoy v. Bron, 780 Phil. 177, 188 (2016), citing Manubay v. Atty. Garcia, 386 Phil. 440 (2000).
16.Id.