FIRST DIVISION
[A.C. No. 13197. July 6, 2022.]
ATTY. MARIA NYMPHA MANDAGAN, petitioner, vs.ATTY. FATEMAH REMEDIOS C. BALBIN, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJuly 6, 2022which reads as follows: HTcADC
"A.C. No. 13197 [Formerly CBD Case No. 16-4911] (Atty. Maria Nympha Mandagan v. Atty. Fatemah Remedios C. Balbin). — This is a Verified Complaint 1 filed by Atty. Maria Nympha C. Mandagan (Atty. Mandagan) before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) against Atty. Fatemah Remedios C. Balbin (Atty. Balbin) for allegedly violating Rules 1.03, 2.03, and 8.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) or for soliciting legal business and ambulance chasing.
The Facts
Atty. Mandagan alleged that Atty. Balbin has encroached on the cases she is handling, specifically those with her client, Mr. Marcelino Ramos (Ramos).
In the early part of 2014, Ramos engaged Atty. Mandagan's services to handle his murder, attempted murder, and land dispute cases in the Regional Trial Court of Ilagan City, Isabela. Paralyzed, blind, and with no means to shoulder the litigation expenses, Ramos offered to compensate Atty. Mandagan through half of the proceeds of the sale of the property (or half of the property itself) subject of a land dispute case (subject property). Atty. Mandagan accepted the offer, and she filed her entry of appearance to Ramos' cases. She also acted as bondsperson and guarantor for Ramos' provisional liberty. 2
After his release, Ramos transferred to Solsona, Ilocos Norte with the aid of Wilson Ganitano (Ganitano). Ramos resided at Ganitano's house and received treatment from faith healers which Florencio Morales (Morales) provided. Without any work and support, Ramos accumulated debts. He even demanded from Atty. Mandagan to shoulder his living expenses and payment for the faith healer, which the lawyer declined to give, explaining that her support pertained to legal matters only. Afterwards, Ramos purportedly mortgaged the subject property without the knowledge and conformity of Atty. Mandagan. 3
Because Atty. Mandagan refused to mortgage the property subject of the land dispute, Ramos, Ganitano, and Morales offered the case involving the subject property to other lawyers, including Atty. Balbin, who subsequently entered her appearance as Ramos' new counsel. Given the involvement of Atty. Balbin, and since Ramos refused to pay for the expenses incurred in litigation, Atty. Mandagan was constrained to file a Complaint 4 for disciplinary action against Atty. Balbin. 5
On the other hand, Atty. Balbin denied knowledge of the agreement between Atty. Mandagan and Ramos. Likewise, she denied knowing Ganitano and Morales. However, she admitted that she received a copy of the Memorandum of Agreement 6 which referred to the authority given by Ramos to Atty. Mandagan regarding the subject property. Atty. Balbin stated that she cannot be considered as an ambulance chaser given her fragile age of 80 years old. Besides, Ramos voluntarily presented himself to her in her office. 7
Atty. Mandagan countered that Ramos' sister and his close friend pled with her to handle Ramos' cases, and that Atty. Balbin has always used her age as a defense. 8 Apart from this, Atty. Mandagan alleged that Atty. Balbin assisted Ramos in filing a case against her (Atty. Mandagan) before the IBP which was eventually dismissed on August 24, 2016 pursuant to Resolution No. XXII-2017-701 docketed as CBD Case No. 15-4702. 9
Report and Recommendation of the
In a Report and Recommendation 10 dated January 8, 2020, the Investigating Commissioner of the IBP-Commission on Bar Discipline recommended the dismissal of the instant Complaint. The Investigating Commissioner found that Atty. Mandagan failed to present substantial evidence showing that Atty. Balbin solicited legal business as well as profited from referral suits. Atty. Balbin did not have any media advertisement which would entice or make Ramos believe that she is more competent than his previous lawyer. In fact, Ramos was the one who went to Atty. Balbin's office and engaged her services. The Investigating Commissioner added that a client has the right to dismiss his/her lawyer and engage a new one. 11 In sum, Atty. Mandagan did not prove that Atty. Balbin violated the CPR. 12
In Resolution No. 2020-09-30 13 dated September 26, 2020, the IBP-Board of Governors resolved to adopt and approve the findings and recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner, stating that such are supported by the evidence on record as well as applicable laws and rules.
Our Ruling
The Court adopts and approves the findings and recommendation of the IBP.
According to Atty. Mandagan, Atty. Balbin violated the following provisions of the CPR:
Rule 1.03 — A lawyer shall not, for any corrupt motive or interest, encourage any suit or proceeding or delay any man's cause.
xxx xxx xxx
Rule 2.03 — A lawyer shall not do or permit to be done any act designed primarily to solicit legal business.
xxx xxx xxx
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.
However, a perusal of the records revealed that Atty. Mandagan failed to justify her claims, especially that relating to encroaching of clients. "Settled is the rule that a lawyer should not steal another lawyer's client nor induce the latter to retain him [or her] by a promise of better service, good result or reduced fees for his [or her] services." 14 In the case at bench, it was Ramos who approached Atty. Balbin, and not the other way around. It appeared that Ramos became averse to Atty. Mandagan when the latter refused to give the former financial aid, prompting him to seek "legal representation" elsewhere, specifically Atty. Balbin. Thus, Atty. Balbin did not induce Ramos to engage her services. In the same way, there is no proof demonstrating that Atty. Balbin actively solicited from anyone to further her legal business. Instead, it was actually Ramos who caused the confusion and conflict, which unfortunately led to the filing of administrative cases by both parties.
In fine, "[i]n disciplinary cases involving members of the Bar, substantial evidence is necessary to justify the imposition of administrative penalty." 15 Atty. Mandagan bears the burden of proof to show the veracity of her allegations. Unfortunately, Atty. Mandagan did not prove with substantial evidence 16 that Atty. Balbin committed any act contrary to law, the Lawyer's Oath, or the CPR, which would warrant the imposition of disciplinary action upon the latter. Additionally, considering the insufficient allegations of Atty. Mandagan, the Court finds that Atty. Balbin did not commit any of the grounds for administrative action under Section 27, Rule 138 17 of the Rules of Court. To reiterate, Atty. Mandagan failed to significantly prove her claim that Atty. Balbin committed ambulance chasing or encroached on another lawyer's professional employment.
WHEREFORE, the instant Complaint against Atty. Fatemah Remedios C. Balbin is DISMISSED for lack of merit.
The Letter dated September 29, 2021 of Avelino V. Sales, Jr., Director for Bar Discipline, is NOTED.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
By:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 1-5.
2. Id. at 1-2, 47-48; Report and Recommendation, pp. 1-2.
3. Rollo, pp. 2 and 48-49; Report and Recommendation, p. 2.
4. Rollo, pp. 1-5.
5. Rollo, pp. 2-3, 49; Report and Recommendation, p. 2.
6. Rollo, pp. 22-23.
7. Rollo, pp. 16-18; Report and Recommendation, pp. 2-3.
8. Rollo, pp. 24-25; Report and Recommendation, pp. 2-3.
9."Marcelino Ramos v. Atty. Maria Nympha Mandagan."
10. Rollo, unpaginated. Penned by Commissioner Mae Elaine T. Bathan.
11. Report and Recommendation, p. 5.
12. Id. at 6.
13. Rollo, unpaginated.
14. Zamora v. Gallanosa, A.C. No. 10738, September 14, 2020, citing Linsangan v. Tolentino, 614 Phil. 327, 334 (2009).
15. Partsch v. Vitorillo, A.C. No. 10897, January 4, 2022, citing Spouses Nocuenca v. Bensi, A.C. No. 12609, February 10, 2020.
16. In Re: Blendell, A.C. No. 12737 (Notice), December 6, 2021, citing 2019 Amendments to the 1989 Revised Rules on Evidence, Rule 133, Section 6: "That amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion."
17. SEC. 27. Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court; grounds therefor. — A member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is required to take before admission to practice, or for willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, or for corruptly or willfully appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without authority to do so. The practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice.