SECOND DIVISION
[A.C. No. 11983. August 6, 2018.]
ATTY. LEO T. CAHANAP, petitioner, vs. ATTY. NICODEMUS PALANGAN AND ATTY. ALAN L. FLORES, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 06 August 2018which reads as follows:
"A.C. No. 11983 (Atty. Leo T. Cahanap vs. Atty. Nicodemus Palangan and Atty. Alan L. Flores). — On January 2, 1995, a complaint 1 was filed by Atty. Leo Cahanap (Atty. Cahanap) before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) accusing herein respondents Atty. Nicodemus Palangan (Palangan) and Atty. Alan L. Flores (Atty. Flores) (collectively referred to as the respondents) of gross misconduct and violation of Rules 8.02 and 9.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).
In his Complaint, Atty. Cahanap alleged that since June 8, 1987, he was the counsel on record of the 2000 worker-claimants in NLRC RAB Case No. 12-07010102-87 entitled "Alan Galorio, et al. vs. ERECTORS, Inc. and/or National Power Corporation" (hereinafter referred to as the class suit). 2
In 1989, Labor Arbiter (LA) Magbanua rendered judgment awarding the claimants hazard pay and herein complainant Atty. Cahanap attorney's fees equivalent to 10% of the monetary award. On appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed with modification the decision of the LA. 3 The case was elevated to this Court which dismissed the appeal on October 21, 1992. 4 Thus, a writ of execution has been issued in the said case in favor of the claimants, 854 of which were paid sometime in July 1993. 5 HEITAD
Subsequently, sometime in October 1993, Atty. Cahanap sent a motion for execution to Mr. Camilo Surban, labor leader and member of the first batch of paid claimants, for filing with the NLRC. The motion seeks for release of the judgment award and payment to therein attached list 186 workers (second batch of worker claimants). However, it appears that the motion was not filed.
On January 28, 1994, LA Palangan, issued an Order declaring the class suit as closed and terminated. 6
Meanwhile, on February 8, 1994, Atty. Flores filed an Omnibus Motion 7 before LA Palangan. Therein, Atty. Flores alleged that he is representing 186 workers in the class suit which were allegedly left out and excluded from the judgment in the class suit. Thus, Atty. Flores moved that the records of the class suit be lifted from the archives and again be subject for deliberation of the rights of the excluded employees. The 186 workers subject of the Omnibus Motion were the same ones included in the list of the second batch of worker-claimants attached to the October 1993 motion for execution by Atty. Cahanap. 8
On February 15, 1994, LA Palangan issued an Order 9 requiring National Power Corporation (NAPOCOR) to comment on the Omnibus Motion. Eventually, or on April 13, 2014, LA Palangan ruled in favor of the excluded workers and ordered NAPOCOR to pay the claims.
Acting on the Motion filed by Atty. Flores, LA Palangan issued an Order on April 25, 1994 granting the release to the former of 10% of the judgment award to the excluded employees as attorney's fees amounting to Php118,376.00. 10
Atty. Cahanap claims that the respondents with evident bad faith and through deceit maneuvered to ease him out of the case with the motive of collecting the 10% attorney's fees to which Atty. Flores was not entitled to. 11
In response, Atty. Flores argues that he was enlisted by the 186 claimants, all of which were not included as complainants in the class suit and therefore do not stand to be benefitted by the judgment rendered in the said case. 12 On the other hand, LA Palangan affirms Atty. Flores' submission and avers that he acted in honest belief that the claimants' case is separate and distinct from that involved in the class suit handled by Atty. Cahanap. 13 ATICcS
On May 30, 2011, Investigating Commissioner Victor C. Fernandez (Commissioner Fernandez) issued a Report 14 recommending that the case be dismissed for lack of merit. In so ruling, Commissioner Fernandez relied heavily on a document stating that the second batch of worker claimants hired the services of Atty. Flores.
The Report was reversed on Review via Extended Resolution 15 which was passed by the IBP Board of Governors on November 19, 2011, the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Report and Recommendation dated 30 May 2011 of the Investigating Commissioner is hereby REVERSED. [Atty. Flores] is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year while [LA Palangan] is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of (6) months.
SO ORDERED. 16
Motion for Reconsideration of the said Extended Resolution having been denied by the IBP Board of Governors on May 27, 2017, 17 thus, this review pursuant to Section 12, Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court. 18
Finding the IBP Board of Governors' Extended Resolution to be in accord with the law, rules, and evidence on record, the Court hereby affirms and adopts the same insofar as the liability of Atty. Flores.
Preliminarily, in view of the facts established by the record, there being no evidence to indicate that Atty. Flores stipulated or agreed to divide his fee for legal services with persons not licensed to practice law, the Court sees no reason to dwell on the alleged violation of Rule 9.02 of the CPR.
The Court then proceeds with the applicability of Rule 8.02 of the same code with the attendant circumstances, which provides:
Rule 8.02 — A lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly, encroach upon the professional employment of another lawyer, however, it is the right of any lawyer, without fear or favor, to give proper advice and assistance to those seeking relief against unfaithful or neglectful counsel.
Simply, pertinent here, Rule 8.02 mandates that a lawyer "should not steal another lawyer's client nor induce the latter to retain him by a promise of better service, good result or reduced fees for his services." 19 TIADCc
Under the circumstances, the Court affirms the finding of the IBP Board of Governors that the acts of Atty. Flores constitute a violation of the foregoing directive.
Foremost, contrary to Atty. Flores' submission, the records clearly show that the second batch of worker-claimants that engaged his services were among the complainants in the class suit and as such is covered by the judgment award. 20 In fact, as determined by the 5th Division of the NLRC, Cagayan De Oro City in its Resolution 21 dated May 31, 1994, these second batch of worker-claimants were the same ones who previously engaged the services of Atty. Cahanap, for which the latter has prepared and filed a motion for execution. The identity of the clients is evidenced by the fact that the list accompanying Atty. Cahanap's motion was the same list used by Atty. Flores to support his own Motion. 22
More importantly, under the aforementioned rule, before taking over a case handled by a fellow member of the Bar, a lawyer is obliged to obtain the conformity of the counsel on record, or at the very least give notice to the such lawyer whom he would substitute. 23 Failure to do so is regarded as an encroachment upon the professional employment of another.
In this case, there was no attempt whatsoever on the part of Atty. Flores to communicate with Atty. Cahanap, the counsel of record, especially so as there was no showing that the latter has been discharged or withdrew from the class suit, or has abandoned or was remiss in his duties to the second batch of worker-claimants. Indeed, it is highly unfair for Atty. Flores to reap the benefits of Atty. Cahanap's efforts who had worked as counsel for the case from its inception in 1987, seeing the case through from the LA to the Supreme Court until its culmination through the issuance of a writ of execution. 24 This is particularly highlighted by the fact that Atty. Flores entered in the picture after judgment has already been rendered in favor of the claimants in the class suit, and what is left is the satisfaction thereof.
In this regard, it is irrelevant that the services of Atty. Flores were specifically sought or engaged by the second batch of worker-claimants. In any case, the duty befalls upon the new counsel to obtain the conformity or at least notify the counsel of record of his appearance. Compliance with the aforesaid obligation determines whether or not there has been professional encroachment. AIDSTE
Anent the penalty, taking into consideration jurisprudence 25 dealing with a similar infraction, the Court affirms the penalty imposed by the IBP Board of Governors in their Extended Resolution.
On the other hand, with respect to LA Palangan, the Court dismisses the complaint for lack of jurisdiction and refers the case to the appropriate agency for action.
LA Palangan is charged in connection with the performance of his official duties as a government lawyer, over which the IBP has no jurisdiction. 26 The allegations in Atty. Cahanap's Complaint against LA Palangan involves the issuance of orders that facilitated the release of attorney's fees in favor of Atty. Flores. As the same relates to misconduct in the discharge of LA Palangan's official functions, the same falls within the original concurrent administrative disciplinary jurisdiction of the head of agency to which he belongs and the Civil Service Commission, 27 or the Office of the Ombudsman. 28
WHEREFORE, the Court finds respondent Atty. Alan L. Flores guilty of violating Canon 8, Rule 8.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, the Court imposes upon him the penalty of SUSPENSION from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year effective immediately upon receipt of this Resolution, with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar acts shall be dealt with more severely.
Let a copy of this Resolution be made part of respondent Atty. Alan L. Flores' records in the Office of the Bar Confidant, Supreme Court of the Philippines, and be furnished to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and the Office of the Court Administrator to be circulated to all courts for their information and guidance.
On the other hand, the complaint against Labor Arbiter Nicodemus Palangan is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction on the part of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.
The case against Labor Arbiter Nicodemus Palangan is referred to the Office of the Ombudsman, which is hereby provided with a copy of this Resolution, for whatever appropriate action they may wish to take with respect to the former's liability. AaCTcI
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of CourtBy:(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 1-8.
2.Id. at 1-2.
3.Id. at 19. The dispositive portion of the NLRC decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appealed decision is modified, directing respondents to pay complainants jointly and severally hazard pay of Three Hundred Pesos or Five Hundred Pesos per month, as the case may be, from September 8, 1982 up to their respective termination from the service period.
Respondents are likewise ordered to pay complainants an amount equivalent to ten percent of the total award as attorney's fees.
4.Id. at 19, 100.
5.Id. at 19, 101.
6.Id. at 2, 151.
7.Id. at 9-11.
8.Id. at 20.
9.Id. at 12.
10.Id. at 13.
11.Id. at 7.
12.Id. at 36.
13.Id. at 74.
14.Id. at 94-98.
15.Id. at 155-160.
16.Id. at 159-160.
17.Id. at 146.
18.Id. at 147.
19.Linsangan v. Atty. Tolentino, 614 Phil. 327, 334 (2009).
20.Rollo, pp. 9, 21-22.
21.Id. at 18-25.
22.Id. at 20.
23.In the Matter of Proceedings for Disciplinary Action against Atty. Clemente M. Soriano in PHHC, et al. v. Hon. Mencias, et al., 144 Phil. 553, 556 (1970).
24.See Garcia v. Atty. Lopez, 558 Phil. 1, 4 (2007).
25.Linsangan v. Atty. Tolentino, supra note 19; Garcia v. Atty. Lopez, id. at 6.
26.Alicias, Jr. v. Macatangay, A.C. No. 7478, January 11, 2017, 814 SCRA 96, 103, citing Buffe v. Gonzales, A.C. No. 8168, October 12, 2016, 805 SCRA 647, 655-656.
27. Executive Order No. 292, or "Administrative Code of 1987," Book V, Title I, Chapter 7, Section 47: Disciplinary Jurisdiction. — (1) The Commission shall decide upon appeal all administrative disciplinary cases involving the imposition of a penal of suspension for more than thirty days, or fine in an amount exceeding thirty days' salary, demotion in rank or salary or transfer, removal or dismissal from office. A complaint may be filed directly with the Commission by a private citizen against a government official or employee in which case it may hear and decide the case or it may deputize any department or agency or official or group of officials to conduct the investigation. The results of the investigation shall be submitted to the Commission with recommendation as to the penalty to be imposed or other action to be taken.
(2) The Secretaries and heads of agencies and instrumentalities, provinces, cities and municipalities shall have jurisdiction to investigate and decide matters involving disciplinary action against officers and employees under their jurisdiction. Their decisions shall be final in case the penalty imposed is suspension for not more than thirty days or fine in an amount not exceeding thirty days' salary. In case the decision rendered by a bureau or office head is appealable to the Commission, the same may be initially appealed to the department and finally to the Commission and pending appeal, the same shall be executory except when the penalty is removal, in which case the same shall be executory only after confirmation by the Secretary concerned.
xxx xxx xx
Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, Section 9. Jurisdiction of Heads of Agencies. — The Secretaries and heads of agencies, and other instrumentalities, provinces, cities and municipalities shall have original concurrent jurisdiction with the Commission over their respective officers and employees. They shall take cognizance of complaints involving their respective personnel. Their decisions shall be final in case the penalty imposed is suspension for not more than thirty (30) days or fine in an amount not exceeding thirty (30) days salary. In case the decision rendered by a bureau or office head is appealable to the Commission, the same may be initially appealed to the department and finally to the Commission and pending appeal, the same shall be executory except when the penalty is removal, in which case the same shall be executory only after confirmation by the Secretary concerned. (Underscoring Ours)
28.R.A. No. 6770, Section 21: Officials Subject to Disciplinary Authority; Exceptions. — The Office of the Ombudsman shall have disciplinary authority over all elective and appointive officials of the Government and its subdivisions, instrumentalities and agencies, including Members of the Cabinet, local government, government-owned or controlled corporations and their subsidiaries, except over officials who may be removed only by impeachment or over Members of Congress, and the Judiciary.