SECOND DIVISION
[A.C. No. 12943. September 13, 2021.]
SPOUSES EDWIN and LETICIA DUMDUM, complainants, vs.ATTY. GERALD P.S. ALGARRA, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 13 September 2021which reads as follows:
"A.C. No. 12943 (Spouses Edwin and Leticia Dumdum v. Atty. Gerald P.S. Algarra). — The spouses Edwin Dumdum and Leticia Dumdum (spouses Dumdum) filed this administrative complaint 1 seeking the disbarment of respondent Atty. Gerald P.S. Algarra (Atty. Algarra) for allegedly delaying an unlawful detainer case where Leticia Dumdum (Leticia) was one of the defendants, for abetting a non-lawyer to practice the legal profession in the same civil case, and for representing conflicting interests.
In their Verified Complaint, 2 the spouses Dumdum alleged that Leticia and Mark Christian R. Dumdum (Mark) were defendants in a civil case for unlawful detainer pending before a trial court, where Atty. Algarra was the counsel for the plaintiff Union.
The spouses Dumdum alleged that Mark, a member of said Union, complied with the requirements of the Shelter Program Contract Award. Mark paid the deposit amounting to P98,432.29 as evidenced by an acknowledgement receipt. However, the Union, through Atty. Algarra, filed an unlawful detainer case against Leticia and Mark. 3
On October 22, 2015, Atty. Jerome Norman L. Tacorda (Atty. Tacorda), as counsel of Leticia and Mark, filed an Ad Cautelam Motion to Dismiss when the summons was received. 4
On March 29, 2016, Atty. Algarra, through Atty. Nil Ryan S. Gonzales, filed a Comment (To defendant's Motion to Dismiss Ad Cautelam) with Motion to Render Judgment to which Atty. Tacorda filed a Reply with comment and alias motion to dismiss the case. 5
On September 1, 2016, Atty. Algarra sought to reset the scheduled hearing pending a possible settlement of the unlawful detainer case between Leticia and Mark and the Union. 6
On October 3, 2016, a certain Atty. Jacques Michele R. Obias (Obias), misrepresenting himself as a lawyer, negotiated for the settlement of the case. 7 For several instances and despite notice, Atty. Algarra failed to attend the hearings 8 particularly on the preliminary conference. Instead, Obias, a non-lawyer, attended the hearings. 9 In particular, on December 11, 2017, Obias attended a hearing on behalf of the Union. 10 The same incident happened during the preliminary conference set on February 22, 2018 11 and during the hearing on March 12, 2018. 12
The spouses Dumdum alleged that the schemes employed by Atty. Algarra dragged the preliminary conference for three (3) years from the time the case was filed. Moreover, his several absences during hearings were prejudicial to the parties and paved the way for a non-lawyer to represent the Union without an SPA. Lastly, there was a conflict of interests when Atty. Algarra represented the Union to which Mark is a paying member. In sum, the spouses Dumdum contended that Atty. Algarra's violations of professional ethics warranted his disbarment.
Report and Recommendation of
In its April 29, 2019 Report and Recommendation, 13 the IBP proposed to dismiss the administrative case against Atty. Algarra for lack of sufficient factual and legal basis. Based on the Orders of the trial court handling the unlawful detainer case, the IBP deduced that the apparent delay in the conduct of preliminary conference was brought about by the negotiation for a possible amicable settlement between the parties. Moreover, it found that there was no violation of Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR), or a lawyer assisting in the unauthorized practice of law. It found that the appearance of Obias during the hearings was in representation of the Union and not of the law firm of Atty. Algarra. Obias SPA was on behalf of the Union and not Atty. Algarra. Canon 15 of the CPR was likewise not violated because as a lawyer, Atty. Algarra is allowed to act as mediator, conciliator or arbitrator in settling disputes such as the Union's cause of action against its members. Lastly, Atty. Algarra's representation of the Union in a case against the latter's members did not result to a conflict of interests. HEITAD
Issue
The principal issue before Us is whether Atty. Algarra should be disbarred for delaying the case, for assisting a non-lawyer in the practice of law, and for representing conflicting interests.
Our Ruling
We adopt the findings and recommendation of the IBP to dismiss the administrative complaint for disbarment against Atty. Algarra for utter lack of merit.
With the grave repercussion of disbarment in mind, the complainant bears the burden of proving by clear, convincing and satisfactory proof that the respondent lawyer committed the alleged violations to prompt the court to exercise its disciplinary power and to warrant the imposition of administrative sanction or worse, the grave penalty of disbarment. 14
The allegations of the spouses Dumdum in their verified complaint do not constitute a violation of Rule 12.04, Canon 12 of the CPR which mandates:
CANON 12 — A LAWYER SHALL EXERT EVERY EFFORT AND CONSIDER IT HIS DUTY TO ASSIST IN THE SPEEDY AND EFFICIENT ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.
Rule 12.04 — A lawyer shall not unduly delay a case, impede the execution of a judgment or misuse Court processes.
Indeed, it is incumbent upon every lawyer advocating the cause of the client to observe court processes, and shall not exploit the same in order to gain any advantage in law. Delaying the resolution of a case runs contrary to the primary duty of a lawyer to take part in the speedy and efficient administration of justice. 15 In this case, the IBP correctly observed that the Orders issued by the trial court showed that the parties were in the middle of negotiating for an amicable settlement. For this reason, the preliminary conference was successively reset and moved to a later date. In fine, the conduct of preliminary conference was not caused by the absence of Atty. Algarra during the scheduled hearings but due to the pending settlement between the parties.
Similarly, there was no violation of Rule 9.01, Canon 9 of the CPR which reads:
Canon 9 — A LAWYER SHALL NOT DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY ASSIST IN THE UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW.
Rule 9.01 — A lawyer shall not delegate to any unqualified person the performance of any task which by law may only be performed by a member of the Bar in good standing.
Respondent did not at all delegate or authorize Obias to appear on his behalf. On the contrary, records show that Obias appeared on behalf of the Union and not as a staff or representative of Atty. Algarra. In any case, entering into an amicable settlement is not reserved exclusively to members of the Bar. Here, Obias was armed with an SPA from the Union when he negotiated for the settlement of the case.
Lastly, Rule 15.03, Canon 5 of the CPR prohibits a lawyer from representing conflicting interests unless all concerned parties manifested their consent in writing after disclosure of the facts. The spouses Dumdum alleged that a conflict of interests arose when Atty. Algarra represented the Union in the unlawful detainer case against Mark, who was a member of the said Union. We do not agree.
Jurisprudence teaches that there are three tests to determine whether a conflict of interest exists: (a) when a lawyer is duty-bound to advocate for a claim in behalf of one client, and then oppose the same claim for another client; (b) when the acceptance of a new client would prevent full discharge of a lawyer's duty or impress double-dealing in accomplishing such; and (c) when the lawyer would be prompted to use confidential information acquired from the previous client or relation to the new client, prejudicial to the former client. 16
By representing the Union in the unlawful detainer case against Mark, Atty. Algarra did not engage in a conflict of interests. For one, Mark has never been his client hence there was no opportunity for respondent to advocate the cause of Mark. Second, there was no occasion for Atty. Algarra not to fully discharge or perform his duties as counsel for the Union simply because Mark was not his client. Third, Atty. Algarra has no confidential information in his possession that could be used against Mark because Mark never engaged his legal services.
All told, for insufficiency of basis in fact and in law, the disbarment case against Atty. Algarra should be dismissed.
At this juncture, it must be stressed that the duty of the Court is not only to impose proper disciplinary punishment to the members of the Bar who contravene their sworn and sacred duty of partaking in the administration of justice, but also to protect them from unsubstantiated averments of violation of the CPR, among others. 17
WHEREFORE, the administrative complaint for disbarment against Atty. Gerald P.S. Algarra is hereby DISMISSED for utter lack of merit.
SO ORDERED." (J. Rosario designated as additional Member per Special Order No. 2835 dated July 15, 2021.) ATICcS
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 2-7.
2.Id.
3.Id. at 2-3.
4.Id. at 3.
5.Id.
6.Id. at 10.
7.Id. at 11.
8.Id. at 12-13.
9.Id. at 16.
10.Id. at 17.
11.Id. at 18.
12.Id. at 32.
13.Id. at 39-40; penned by IBP Commissioner Abelardo P. De Jesus.
14.Suplico v. Lokin, Jr., A.C. No. 9152, July 1, 2020.
15.David v. Rongcal, A.C. No. 12103, June 23, 2020.
16.Parungao v. Lacuanan, A.C. No. 12071, March 11, 2020, citing Quiambao v. Bamba, 505 Phil. 126 (2005).
17.Biliran v. Bantugan, A.C. No. 8451, September 30, 2020.