Case Digest (A.C. No. 10933)
Case Digest (A.C. No. 10933)
Facts:
Wilson B. Tan v. Atty. James Roulyn R. Alvarico, A.C. No. 10933, November 03, 2020, Supreme Court First Division, Peralta, C.J., writing for the Court. Complainant Wilson B. Tan filed an administrative complaint for disbarment against respondent Atty. James Roulyn R. Alvarico, who was counsel for the accused, Blas Fier "Buddy" Manco, in Criminal Case No. 2014-22652 (the alleged theft of a steering wheel) pending before Branch 44, RTC Dumaguete City. Tan alleged that Atty. Alvarico personally approached him and solicited a settlement arrangement in which Alvarico would obtain a 15% commission, and that such conduct constituted a betrayal of his client's trust and a conflict of interest in violation of Rule 15.03 and Canon 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Tan submitted Atty. Alvarico's affidavit and the TSN of an August 10, 2015 hearing as supporting evidence.Atty. Alvarico denied solicitation and maintained he negotiated only at his client's instance and with his client's knowledge to explore settlement of the civil aspect of the theft case; he contended he represented solely Manco's interests. Manco later executed an affidavit corroborating that he requested Atty. Alvarico to approach Tan and that he never heard Alvarico ask for any commission. The TSN likewise reflects that the private prosecutor (Tan) was present during the first approach. Alvarico explained he did not cross-examine Tan in the criminal trial on the commission allegation because the allegation was shocking, immaterial to the theft charge, and not appropriate for the criminal hearing.
The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Investigating Commissioner recommended dismissal for failure of proof (Nov. 22, 2017), and the IBP Board of Governors adopted that recommendation (Notice of Resolution dated Jan. 19, 2019). Complainant filed a Motion for Reconsideration (Aug. 12, 2019). Pursuant to Bar Matter No. 1645 (B.M. No. 1645, Oct. 13, 2015) amending Sec. 12, Rule 139-B, the IBP Board's resolution and the records were transmitted to the Supreme Court for final action, and the Court proceeded to resolve the matter on the records transmitted. The Court considered the IBP records, the parties' submissions (including Atty. Alvarico's position paper), pertinent jurisprudence and rules on the quantum of proof and evidence, and then issued the present decision.
Issues:
- Whether the IBP Board of Governors' resolution is properly before the Supreme Court for final action under Bar Matter No. 1645.
- Whether complainant proved by the required quantum of proof that Atty. Alvarico committed conflict of interest and betrayal of client trust in violation of Rule 15.03 and Canon 17.
- Whether Atty. Alvarico's failure to cross-examine complainant in the criminal trial constitutes an admission by silence under Section 33, Rule 130 of the Rules of Evidence.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)