Sevandal vs. Adame

Facts:

Complainant Atty. Virgilio A. Sevandal filed a disbarment complaint on September 6, 2011 with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP‑CBD) against Atty. Melita B. Adame, alleging violations of Rule 8.02, Canon 8 (encroachment on another lawyer’s professional employment) and Rule 10.01, Canon 10 (doing any falsehood) of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). Sevandal based his complaint on a claimed verbal agreement (February 2, 2011), a Retainer Contract (March 9, 2011), and an alleged Addendum (April 25, 2011) with Merlina Borja‑Sevandal (Merlina), widow of the decedent, to represent Merlina in claims arising from her husband’s death; the retainer expressly covered litigation at the Regional Trial Court (RTC) level only and provided for contingent fees.

While Sevandal pursued DRPI (the indemnity agent) administratively on April 26, 2011, Atty. Adame filed an NLRC complaint for death benefits on May 3, 2011 as counsel for Merlina. Sevandal thereafter attempted to intervene in the NLRC proceedings: he filed a Manifestation and Formal Entry of Appearance (May 9, 2011), appeared at mandatory conferences and objected to Adame’s appearance, and filed an Ex‑Parte Motion for Attorney’s Lien (June 17, 2011) claiming a 20% fee; the Labor Arbiter approved a compromise and awarded P300,000.00 in attorney’s fees, which Sevandal received and signed a general release/quitclaim. Adame denied wrongdoing, asserted the RTC‑limited scope of Sevandal’s retainer, produced a Revocation of Retainer Contract by Merlina (May 24, 2011), and denied Merlina had signed any Addendum giving Sevandal 20%.

The IBP‑CBD Investigating Commissioner issued a Report and Recommendation (February 2, 2013) dismissing the complaint against Adame for lack of merit and further recommending that Sevandal be ordered to show cause for encroaching on Adame’s services and for receiving P300,000 without authority. The IBP Board of Governors adopted that Report (March 21, 2013). Sevandal’s motion for reconsideration was denied (March 22, 2014), and the IBP later found Sevandal guilty of encroachment and recommended a two‑year suspension and restitution of P300,000.00. The IBP Board of Governors adopted the CBD’s recommendation (November 28, 2017), and pursuant to Rule 139‑B of the Rule...(Pro-only)

Issues:

• Was the IBP correct in suspending Atty. Virgilio A. Sevandal from the practice of law for two years and directing him to return P300,000.00 to the client?
• Did Atty. Sevandal encroach upon the professional employment of Atty. Melita B. Adame in violation of Rule 8.02, Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility?
• Was Atty. Sevandal entitled to retain the P300,...(Pro-only)

Ruling:

• (Pro-only)

Ratio:

• (Pro-only)

Doctrine:

• (Pro-only)