Case Digest (G.R. No. 203833)
Facts:
The case involves the complaint filed by the law partnership Del Rosario Bagamasbad & Raboca, known as VERA LAW, against Atty. Editha R. Hechanova. VERA LAW was a partnership duly registered under Philippine law, and Hechanova joined the firm in 1991 as an associate, becoming a partner-in-charge of the Intellectual Property (IP) Department in 1997, after which the firm became Del Rosario Hechanova Bagamasbad & Raboca. The complaint, filed in December 2012, alleged that while still a partner, Hechanova undermined the partnership's interests by registering a competing legal entity "Hechanova & Co., Inc." with the SEC in August 2005, registering her name as a service mark for legal services with the Intellectual Property Office in February 2005, and leasing office space in preparation to leave the firm. VERA LAW also alleged that Hechanova recruited senior lawyers from the firm to her new practice, took client files, and maligned the firm by disparaging its competence to clients. FCase Digest (G.R. No. 203833)
Facts:
- Parties and Background
- Complainant: The partnership Del Rosario Bagamasbad & Raboca, known as VERA LAW, registered under Philippine law.
- Respondent: Atty. Editha R. Hechanova, who joined VERA LAW in 1991, became a partner in 1997, assigned as partner-in-charge of the Intellectual Property (IP) Department.
- The partnership was renamed to Del Rosario Hechanova Bagamasbad & Raboca upon Hechanova's admittance as partner.
- Allegations by VERA LAW
- Hechanova allegedly used VERA LAW’s contacts, office time, and resources to promote herself and prepare for departure from the firm.
- Specific acts cited:
- August 2005: Registered with SEC a competing company, "Hechanova & Co., Inc.", engaged in legal-related agency services.
- February 2005: Registered her own name as service mark for legal services with the Intellectual Property Office (IPO).
- September 2005: Leased office space for her eventual transfer, operating currently as Hechanova Bugay & Vilches.
- After an administrative investigation on December 9, 2005, she allegedly recruited two senior lawyers from VERA LAW's IP Department, Atty. Jennifer Fajelagutan and Atty. Bernadette Tocjayao.
- On December 12, 2005, Hechanova was expelled from the partnership by remaining partners.
- Alleged wrongful acts include taking client files, altering powers of attorney (POA) to name herself as attorney-in-fact instead of VERA LAW, and making disparaging statements about VERA LAW's competence to clients.
- Also accused of violating Canon 15, Rule 15.03 relating to conflict of interests in opposing previous clients’ trademark applications.
- Respondent’s Denials and Explanation
- Hechanova denied misuse of firm’s resources and preparation to leave.
- Claimed illegal expulsion without administrative investigation.
- Filed a separate case for dissolution of partnership and accounting due to denial of share in assets.
- Denied taking client files improperly and making disparaging statements.
- Claimed trademark service mark registration was inspired by celebrity practice and was transparent.
- Explained company "Hechanova & Co., Inc." was initially for non-competitive internet/business activities; amended to cover legal services after expulsion.
- Denied poaching clients; argued clients have right to choose lawyers.
- Argued no exclusivity in the powers of attorney she modified.
- Contended that trademark opposition was to different marks not previously covered in client relationship.
- Disavowed attorney-client relationship with AMSPEC, arguing work was limited and performed by others in the firm.
- Procedural History and Motions
- Motion for Clarification was filed disputing complainant's identity and verification.
- Various hearings, mandatory conferences, position papers, and submissions took place.
- Motion to dismiss filed by complainant in May 2016 on grounds of misunderstanding and misappreciation.
- IBP-CBD denied the motion to dismiss citing procedural rules.
- IBP-CBD recommended three-year suspension; IBP Board of Governors reduced penalty to one-year suspension with stern warning.
Issues:
- Whether the Complaint should be dismissed due to:
- Defective filing or verification.
- Motion to dismiss filed by the complainant.
- Whether Hechanova violated Canons 3, 8, and 8.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) regarding:
- False, misleading, and disparaging statements.
- Unauthorized use of firm's resources to promote self.
- Poaching of clients.
- Whether Hechanova violated Canon 15.03 (Rule against conflicting interests) by:
- Opposing Gourdo’s Inc.’s trademark application despite prior representation.
- Representing Newell Rubbermaid and others against AMSPEC, a former client.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)