THIRD DIVISION
[A.C. No. 10741. November 23, 2020.][Formerly CBD Case No. 16-4906]
ATTY. GRACE VALENTINE Z. MERINO, ATTY. MA. LINA NIEVA S. CASALS, and ATTY. PORTIA SHIRLEY V. VALENCIA-BONDOC, complainants,vs. ATTY. GERARDO D. RABANES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedNovember 23, 2020, which reads as follows:
"A.C. No. 10741 [Formerly CBD Case No. 16-4906] (Atty. Grace Valentine Z. Merino, Atty. Ma. Lina Nieva S. Casals, and Atty. Portia Shirley V. Valencia-Bondoc v. Atty. Gerardo D. Rabanes). — Atty. Grace Valentine Z. Merino (Atty. Merino), Atty. Ma. Lina Nieva S. Casals, and Atty. Portia Shirley V. Valencia-Bondoc (collectively, complainants), filed this complaint 1 against respondent Atty. Gerardo D. Rabanes (Atty. Rabanes) for Conduct Unbecoming a Lawyer and violation of Canons 1, 7, 8, 10 and 11, and Rules 1.01, 10.01, 10.02, 10.03, and 12.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).
The antecedent facts are as follows:
This case is related to A.C. No. 8570 entitled "Atty. Gerardo D. Rabanes v. Atty. Grace Valentine A. Merino, Atty. Ma. Lina Nieva S. Casals, and Atty. Portia Shirley V. Valencia-Bondoc" (which was already closed and terminated). 2 These cases originated from a labor case then pending before the Court of Appeals (appellate court) and docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 83903 entitled "Uniprom, Inc., Jorge L. Araneta, Lucas F. Pasiliao and Rogelio Yap, Sr. v. National Labor Relations Commission, Ma. Victoria Tanguin, Mary Ann L. Bernal, Lourdes Aguila, Ma. Rhodora L. Apon, June F. Raterta and Rizza De Leon."
Complainants and Atty. Rabanes were the opposing counsels in CA-G.R. SP No. 83903 where the parties eventually entered into a compromise agreement 3 before the mediation center of the appellate court. However. Atty. Rabanes alleged that he was not able to attend the mediation proceedings since he was not informed of the schedule. Conversely, complainants averred that they never took advantage of Atty. Rabanes' absence during the mediation conferences. Moreover, Atty. Rabanes was lying when he claimed that he was not notified of the schedules because the records showed that his (Atty. Rabanes') representative attended each of the four (4) scheduled mediation conferences.
Atty. Merino asserted that it was unethical for Atty. Rabanes to have filed this administrative complaint against them for the purpose of collecting his "attorney's fees." She clarified that the appellate court awarded them attorney's fees based on the agreements entered into by the parties, and that Atty. Rabanes had no lien over such fees. The complainants alleged that this administrative case was baseless and meant solely to satisfy the selfish interests of Atty. Rabanes which constituted as conduct unbecoming of a lawyer.
Atty. Rabanes insisted that he was not properly notified of the mediation conferences and that his representative was only able to attend once. The compromise agreement was reached without his presence hence he was not able to properly advise his clients. He argued that complainants did not observe courtesy and fairness during the mediation proceedings.
Atty. Rabanes further asserted that after the settlement, his clients no longer contacted him hence his failure to collect his professional fees. Thus, this administrative complaint against the herein complainants to collect his attorney's fees in order to buy medicine for his ailments caused by his advanced age. Notably, Atty. Rabanes eventually moved to withdraw the administrative case.
In a Resolution 4 dated August 26, 2015, We referred this administrative case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation.
Report and Recommendation of the IBP:
The Investigating Commissioner 5 recommended the suspension of Atty. Rabanes from the practice of law for a period of three (3) months for employing harassment tactics against the complainants to facilitate the collection of his attorney's fees. The Investigating Commissioner ruled that Atty. Rabanes' presence during the mediation proceedings was not necessary. Moreover, complainants were not obliged to update him of the developments in the compromise agreement.
The Investigating Commissioner noted that Atty. Rabanes disrespected his colleagues in the Bar, unfairly treated and caused them vexation for the purpose of collecting his profession fees. The Investigating Commissioner further noted that "respondent [Atty. Rabanes] did not even submit a single word for him to repudiate Atty. Merino's allegation that he filed before the CA his 'Very Urgent Manifestation and Motion (To Be Paid Attorney's Fees)' and threatened Atty. Merino of an administrative complaint if his attorney's fees were not paid." 6
The Board of Governors (BOG) of the IBP resolved to adopt the findings of the Investigating Commissioner and the recommendation to suspend Atty. Rabanes from the practice of law for three (3) months.
Our Ruling
We adopt the findings of the IBP but modify the recommended penalty.
The allegations against Atty. Rabanes indeed warrant the imposition of disciplinary action. The Lawyer's Oath states that a lawyer "will not wittingly or willingly promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit x x x and will conduct [himself/herself] as a lawyer according to the best of my [his/her] knowledge and discretion." It is undisputed that Atty. Rabanes willingly filed this administrative case against the complainants, his colleagues in the legal profession with the end view of collecting his professional fees. He blamed the complainants for his inability to collect his attorney's fees from his clients after arriving at a compromise agreement during the mediation proceedings before the appellate court. Atty. Rabanes himself admitted that he filed the administrative case because he wanted to collect the said attorney's fees even if he knew that complainants were not liable for it. Notably, Atty. Rabanes eventually withdrew his complaint which only goes to show that there was actually no basis for such a suit. 7
Canon 8 of the CPR provides that "a lawyer shall conduct himself[/herself] with courtesy, fairness and candor towards his[/her] professional colleagues, and shall avoid harassing tactics against opposing counsel." It "admonishes lawyers to conduct themselves with courtesy, fairness and candor toward their fellow lawyers. Lawyers are duty bound to uphold the dignity of the legal profession. They must act honorably, fairly and candidly toward each other and otherwise conduct themselves without reproach at all times." Moreover, Canon 11 states that "[A] lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and to judicial officers and should insist on similar conduct by others." The acts complained of proved Atty. Rabanes' lack of courtesy, fairness and candor towards his colleagues in the legal profession, especially since he employed harassing tactics such as the filing of this suit against his opposing counsels without sufficient basis. Ironically, Atty. Rabanes blamed the complainants for his own negligence in monitoring the payment of his attorney's fees.
However, We note that Atty. Rabanes' old age and need for funds to sustain his medical needs caused him to file the complaint against the complainants. It is highly likely that he acted out of frustration and dismay over not being able to collect his legal fees for the services he has rendered to his clients especially since he needed the money to defray for his medical bills. Yet, realizing that his complaint against the complainants was uncalled for, he subsequently withdrew it. In view of this, and it appearing that this is his first offense, the Court finds it appropriate to suspend Atty. Rabanes from the practice of law for one (1) month 8 and to issue a warning that a repetition of the same or similar act shall be dealt more severely.
WHEREFORE, for violating the Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility, Atty. Gerardo D. Rabanes is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one (1) month and STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar act shall be dealt with severely.
Respondent is DIRECTED to file a Manifestation to this Court that his suspension has started, copy furnished all courts and quasi-judicial bodies where he has entered his appearance as counsel.
Let copies of this Resolution be furnished to the Office of the Bar Confidant, to be appended to the personal record of Atty. Gerardo D. Rabanes as an attorney-at-law; to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines; and to the Office of the Court Administrator for dissemination to all courts throughout the country for their guidance and information.
There being no motion for reconsideration or petition for review filed with the Court per records of the Office of the Bar Confidant, this case is declared CLOSED and TERMINATED.
The November 21, 2018 Letter of Atty. Marlou B. Ubano, Director for Bar Discipline is NOTED.
SO ORDERED." (J. Delos Santos, on official leave.)
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Actually a Counter-Complaint on Atty. Rabanes' prior Administrative Complaint (A.C. No. 8570), which was filed by Atty. Merino and was adopted by the other complainants; seerollo, pp. 2-16.
2.Rollo, p. 53.
3.See Judgment on Compromise Agreements; rollo, pp. 17-22.
4.Rollo, p. 99.
5. Erwin L. Aguilaera.
6.Rollo, unpaginated; see Report and Recommendation, p. 6.
7.Id.; see Position Paper of Atty. Rabanes, p. 5.
8.Olayta-Camba v. Bongon, 757 Phil. 1, 8 (2015).