FIRST DIVISION
[A.C. No. 11765. April 2, 2018.]
LUCIANO FESTIN LIGASON, JR., complainant,vs. ATTY. EMMANUEL E. SANDICHO, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedApril 2, 2018which reads as follows: cAaDHT
"A.C. No. 11765 (Luciano Festin Ligason, Jr. v. Atty. Emmanuel E. Sandicho).
Before Us is a complaint for disbarment 1 filed by herein complainant Luciano Festin Ligason, Jr. against respondent Atty. Emmanuel E. Sandicho for violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).
The instant disbarment complaint stemmed from a complaint for permanent and total disability filed by complainant against his employer, Senator Crewing, Aquanut Shipmanagement and Capt. Casimiro A. Cueto before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). 2
Complainant alleged that he discovered that respondent misstated facts in the pleadings filed before the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC. As such, complainant considered the same as the reason why his case was. dismissed before the labor tribunals for lack of merit. Complainant also claimed that respondent failed to furnish him a copy of his position paper filed before the Labor Arbiter and NLRC. 3
For his part, respondent offered justification for his failure to furnish complainant a copy of the position paper filed before the Labor Arbiter and NLRC. He maintained that their attorney-client relationship was founded on a contingent basis; thus, it was proper for him to take hold of any document pending reimbursement by complainant. Moreover, respondent countered that the version of facts stated in the pleadings filed before the labor tribunals never exemplified betrayal of complainant's trust. 4
The Integrated Bar of the Philippines IBP-Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. 5 The recommendation reads:
Undersigned recommends that in view of the foregoing, respondent ATTY. EMMANUEL E. SANDICHO is hereby EXONERATED and the Complaint must be dismissed.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED. 6
Such recommendation was adopted by the IBP-Board of Governors in a Resolution dated August 26, 2016, thus:
"RESOLUTION NO. XXII-2016-412Luciano Festin Ligason, Jr. vs.
RESOLVED to ADOPT the findings of fact and recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner dismissing the complaint."7
We dismiss the complaint. CAIHTE
Lawyers are required to maintain, at all times, a high standard of legal proficiency, and to devote their full attention, skill, and competence to their cases, regardless of their importance, and whether they accept them for a fee or for free. 8
In disciplinary proceedings against lawyers, public interest is its primary objective, and the real question for determination is whether or not the attorney is still a fit person to be allowed to practice law. 9 The burden of proof rests upon the complainant 10 and the proper evidentiary threshold is substantial evidence. 11
In this case, complainant imputes to respondent's negligence and betrayal of trust the adverse decision rendered by the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC as the labor tribunals both declared him to be suffering from a Grade 7 impediment, when he sought to be declared as permanently and totally disabled. However, it must be noted that the decision of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC was based on lack of sufficient proof that complainant is suffering from permanent total disability. The outcome of the case, though seemingly unfavorable to the complainant, should not be discerned as betrayal of trust in the absence of proof that the respondent did not exercise the degree of diligence required in handling the case.
Moreover, respondent's alleged deliberate failure to furnish complainant of copies of pleadings is unfounded. Section 37 of Rule 138 provides for the concept of retaining lien, to wit:
SEC. 37. Attorney's liens. — An attorney shall have a lien upon the funds, documents and papers of his client which have lawfully come into his possession and may retain the same until his lawful fees and disbursements have been paid, and may apply such funds to the satisfaction thereof. He shall also have a lien to the same extent upon all judgments for the payment of money, and executions issued in pursuance of such judgments, which he has secured in a litigation of his client, from and after the time when he shall have caused a statement of his claim of such lien to be entered upon the records of the court rendering such judgment, or issuing such execution, and shall have caused written notice thereof to be delivered to his client and to the adverse party; and he shall have the same right and power over such judgments and executions as his client would have enforce his lien and secure the payment of his just fees and disbursements. DETACa
Although the Rules sanction an attorney's lien over the funds, documents and papers of his client, the following elements are required for the full recognition of the same: (1) lawyer-client relationship; (2) lawful possession of the client's funds, documents and papers; and (3) unsatisfied claim for attorney's fees. 12
There is no question that there is an attorney-client relationship between complainant and respondent and that respondent's possession of the documents pertaining to complainant's case is lawful as the case was still pending. Even then, as found by the IBP-CBD, complainant failed to make any follow-up on his case. His inaction was perceived by respondent as his lack of interest in securing copies of the pleadings, when in fact, respondent is willing to provide him with the same. Lastly, it is undisputed that the attorney-client relationship between complainant and respondent is on a contingency basis and that complainant has yet to satisfy the agreed contingent fee.
In all, We find no reason to exercise Our disciplinary authority over respondent based on complainant's assertions.
WHEREFORE, the instant case is hereby DISMISSED for utter lack of merit. The administrative complaint against Atty. Emmanuel E. Sandicho is deemed CLOSED and TERMINATED.
SO ORDERED." Sereno, C.J., on leave.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 2-8.
2.Id. at 364.
3.Id. at 365.
4.Id. at 366.
5.Id. at 363-370.
6.Id. at 370.
7.Id. at 361.
8.Samonte v. Atty. Jumamil, A.C. No. 11668, July 17, 2017.
9.Ylaya v. Atty. Gacott, 702 Phil. 390, 407 (2013).
10.Concepcion v. Atty. Fandiño, Jr., 389 Phil. 474, 480 (2000).
11.Reyes v. Nieva, A.C. No. 8560, September 6, 2016.
12. Luna v. Atty. Galarrita, 763 Phil. 175, 194 (2015).