Title
Sevandal vs. Adame
Case
A.C. No. 10571
Decision Date
Nov 11, 2020
Atty. Sevandal encroached on Atty. Adame's NLRC case representation, violating CPR Rule 8.02, leading to a one-year suspension and P300,000 refund to Merlina. Atty. Adame cleared of misconduct.

Case Digest (A.C. No. 10571)

Facts:

  • Pre-litigation Agreements
    • February 2, 2011 – Verbal engagement of Atty. Virgilio A. Sevandal by Merlina Borja-Sevandal to handle claims arising from the death of her husband, Master Camilo Verano Sevandal, with a 10% contingent fee.
    • March 9, 2011 – Written Retainer Contract:
      • Scope – Recovery of (a) conjugal partnership property and (b) legitime as surviving spouse and heir, exclusively at the RTC level.
      • Fees – 10% success fee on market value, appearance fees, expenses, and cash advances (₱100,000 upon insurance proceeds; ₱150,000 upon filing).
  • Addendum and Parallel Claims
    • April 25, 2011 – Alleged Addendum to Retainer Contract expanding scope to death and monetary benefits from multiple agencies (e.g., Bandila Maritime, DRPI, SSS, ECC, OWWA) for a 20% success fee; evidence submitted included photocopies with inconsistent versions.
    • April 26, 2011 – Sevandal filed claim for death benefits with DRPI.
  • NLRC Proceedings and Fee Award
    • May 3, 2011 – Atty. Melita B. Adame filed NLRC complaint for death benefits, damages, and attorney’s fees on behalf of Merlina.
    • May 9, 2011 – Sevandal filed (a) a Manifestation Re: Withdrawal of Complaint and (b) Formal Entry of Appearance as counsel for Merlina in the NLRC, attaching the Addendum.
    • May–June 2011 – He persisted in entering appearances, objected to Adame’s representation, and on June 17, 2011 filed an Ex Parte Motion for Attorney’s Lien (20% fee).
    • August 1, 2011 – Labor Arbiter approved compromise awarding Sevandal ₱300,000 as attorney’s fees; Sevandal signed a general release and quitclaim.
  • IBP Disciplinary Proceedings
    • September 6, 2011 – Sevandal filed disbarment complaint against Adame with the IBP-CBD.
    • October 4, 2011 – Adame answered, denying CPR violations, asserting the RTC-only scope of the original contract, revocation of the retainer, and lack of authentic Addendum.
    • February 2, 2013 – Investigating Commissioner recommended dismissal of complainant’s charges and investigation of Sevandal for encroachment and improper fee.
    • March 21, 2013 & March 22, 2014 – IBP Board adopted dismissal of Adame complaint, ordered Sevandal to show cause; subsequently found Sevandal guilty of encroachment, recommending 2-year suspension and return of ₱300,000.
  • Supreme Court Transmission
    • November 11, 2020 – Supreme Court received IBP Board’s resolution for review under Rule 139-B, Rules of Court.

Issues:

  • Did Atty. Sevandal commit professional misconduct by encroaching upon Atty. Adame’s employment (CPR Rule 8.02, Canon 8) and/or doing falsehood (CPR Rule 10.01, Canon 10)?
  • Is the recommended sanction (two-year suspension and return of ₱300,000) appropriate?

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.