SECOND DIVISION
[A.C. No. 11547. February 8, 2017.]
MONCHITO AMPELOQUIO, ET AL., complainants, vs. ATTY. POTENCIANO A. FLORES, JR., respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 08 February 2017 which reads as follows:
"A.C. No. 11547 (Monchito Ampeloquio, et al. vs. Atty. Potenciano A. Flores, Jr.). — For resolution is a complaint against respondent Atty. Potenciano A. Flores, Jr. for disbarment on alleged violations of Canons 15, 17 and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility before the Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD), Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) by complainants Proctor and Gamble Philippines, Inc., Employees Progressive Union through their authorized Union Officers Monchito Ampeloquio and Joel Billones, and representatives Roberto Rosales and Raul Onlay.
The complaint alleged that respondent, who was then the counsel of the complainants, was negligent in providing legal services in a labor case they filed against their employer. The Complaint also alleged that respondent made an unwanted intrusion 1 during the crucial execution stage of the labor case even if respondent's services had been terminated by complainants. Respondent allegedly failed to protect complainants' rights as he allowed his paralegal staff to prepare the necessary pleadings, and even failed to review those pleadings before they were filed in court. Furthermore, the complaint alleged that respondent, whose services had been terminated, maliciously met in private with the counsel of the opposing party (complainants' employer) to discuss possible settlement of the labor case without the consent of the complainants.
In his Answer, respondents submit, among others, that his legal services were engaged by complainants for 13 years. He claims that after he took over the case from Atty. Rañeses (counsel of the complainants when the case was still in the Labor Arbiter and NLRC), he rendered continuous, straight and dedicated legal services to the complainants up to the time that the case reached the Court of Appeals and thereafter, the Supreme Court. He argues that by virtue of his attorney's lien, he claimed that there is no prohibition on him to participate actively in the execution stated of judgment as he has an interest to protect and a lien to pursue. Respondent specifically denied the allegation that he had a meeting with the opposing counsel and discussed the possibility of a settlement of the monetary claims, contrary to the wishes of the complainants not to settle but to pursue the case.
In his Report and Recommendation dated October 5, 2012, the Investigating Commissioner, Salvador B. Belaro, Jr., CBD, IBP found that the allegations in the complaint are unsubstantiated but recommended that respondent be admonished.
In Resolution No. XX-2013-604, the IBP Board of Governors reversed the recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner and dismissed the case on the following grounds:
Firstly, respondent did not encroach upon the professional employment of Atty. Mahinay who was complainants' new counsel in the labor case considering that there was no proof that respondent directly or indirectly participated in the court proceedings. Secondly, the allegation that respondent met and discussed the possible settlement of the case with the opposing counsel is also not substantiated. The bare allegation of the alleged secret meeting between respondent and Atty. Geronimo who was then counsel of complainants' opposing party, does not prove that an actual meeting took place. Finally, the allegation that respondent was negligent in handling the labor case because he delegated the preparation and filing of the pleadings to a paralegal without respondent reviewing it, is likewise unsubstantiated. CAIHTE
Finding the recommendation of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines to be fully supported by the evidence on records and applicable laws, the Court RESOLVES to DISMISS the case against Atty. Potenciano A. Flores, Jr. and consider the same as CLOSED and TERMINATED.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Asking for an increase of his professional fee.