A.C. No. 9259 - Rodica vs. Lazaro

Case Summary (A.C. No. 9259)

Petitioner

Jasper Junno F. Rodica alleged that respondent lawyers committed gross and serious misconduct, deceit, malpractice, grossly immoral conduct and violated the Code of Professional Responsibility by inducing her to withdraw a Regional Trial Court (RTC) civil case and by extorting and/or receiving large sums in connection with Strong’s immigration/deportation proceedings.

Respondents

Atty. Manuel M. Lazaro, Atty. Edwin M. Espejo, Atty. Abel M. Almario, Atty. Michelle B. Lazaro (all of M.M. Lazaro & Associates), and Atty. Joseph C. Tan (MOST Law) were charged in an administrative complaint for disbarment/suspension based on the acts and omissions described by Rodica.

Key Dates and Procedural Posture

Prior to March 29, 2011: Rodica’s RTC civil case for recovery of possession and damages was filed; RTC dismissed the complaint on March 29, 2011 for failure to state a cause of action.
May 5, 2011: William Strong arrested by the Bureau of Immigration (pursuant to an Interpol Red Notice).
May 13, 2011: Meeting between Strong and lawyers of Lazaro Law Office; Rodica present and met the lawyers.
May 19, 2011: Strong filed a Manifestation with Omnibus Motion to voluntarily leave the country.
May 25, 2011: Bureau of Immigration granted Strong’s motion to voluntarily leave.
May 31, 2011: Strong departed the Philippines.
June 3–6, 2011: Rodica’s Manifestation with Motion to Withdraw Motion for Reconsideration filed in the RTC (dates in records vary slightly).
June 14, 2011: RTC granted Rodica’s Withdrawal.
Administrative complaint for disbarment filed by Rodica; Supreme Court First Division resolved the complaint and dismissed it, warning only Atty. Espejo.

Applicable Law and Standard

Because the decision occurred after 1990, the Court applied the 1987 Philippine Constitution along with the Code of Professional Responsibility and relevant Supreme Court jurisprudence governing lawyer discipline. The controlling disciplinary standards emphasized: (1) the presumption of innocence for lawyers in suspension/disbarment proceedings; (2) the complainant’s burden to prove allegations by a preponderance of evidence (Rule 133, Sec. 1 factors); and (3) the principle that disbarment or suspension is a drastic remedy to be exercised cautiously and only for weighty reasons.

Factual Background (as found by the Court)

William Strong, an American wanted in Brazil on allegations linked to international securities fraud, was arrested in the Philippines pursuant to an Interpol Red Notice. Apostol referred Strong to Atty. Manuel; the Lazaro Law Office agreed to handle Strong’s immigration matter. During meetings Strong offered a success fee (US$100,000) to secure expedited release and departure. Strong mentioned his Boracay property and Rodica’s pending RTC case related to that property. Rodica later filed the administrative complaint asserting that respondents misrepresented that withdrawal of her RTC case was part of a broader settlement that would resolve all disputes and that large sums (allegedly over ₱7 million) were extorted or funneled as payoffs to secure Strong’s deportation.

Allegations Advanced by the Complainant

Rodica alleged, among other claims:

Respondent lawyers represented that the withdrawal of her RTC case was merely the first step in an overall settlement of her disputes with Hillview, Dornau and others; she was induced to withdraw her case on that representation.
The Lazaro Law Office extorted and received more than ₱7 million in alleged professional fees and “penalties,” which were purportedly used as payoffs to immigration, police, Malacañang officials and to Atty. Joseph Tan.
Respondents denied her status as their client to evade responsibility.
Respondents submitted concocted or false statements to hide wrongful acts.
Atty. Tan acted as a conduit or willing partner in orchestrating Strong’s arrest and deportation and in pressuring Rodica.

Respondents’ Contentions and Documentary Record

Atty. Manuel, Atty. Almario and Atty. Espejo admitted involvement in meetings with Strong but denied contacting Atty. Tan or negotiating the RTC case as a condition for Strong’s deportation. Atty. Manuel stressed the RTC civil complaint had been dismissed on March 29, 2011 (before Strong’s arrest) and Strong was not a party to that RTC case.
Respondents presented Bureau of Immigration documents showing Strong was subject to an Interpol Red Notice and that his arrest and deportation followed immigration procedures; Strong’s warrant dated earlier (cited as February 2008) undercut the idea of a recent local orchestration.
Atty. Espejo admitted drafting and signing a Manifestation with Motion to Withdraw Motion for Reconsideration and including the Lazaro Law Office and senior lawyers’ names without their knowledge or authority; he explained this was done to assist Rodica because of their personal rapport. He later filed a Motion to Withdraw Appearance and apologized.
Atty. Tan denied any involvement, calling the allegations double hearsay and pointing to the chronology (Rodica’s withdrawal filed after Strong’s departure) to show lack of causal connection.

Court’s Evidentiary Assessment and Legal Analysis

Burden of Proof: The Court reiterated that disbarment requires proof by preponderance; bare allegations without corroborating evidence fail to meet that burden.
Chronology and Documentary Evidence: The Court found the contemporaneous documentary record dispositive: the RTC complaint had been dismissed March 29, 2011; Strong’s arrest (May 5), the BI judgment allowing voluntary departure (May 25), and Strong’s departure (May 31) all preceded the filing of Rodica’s Manifestation to withdraw the Motion for Reconsideration (filed June 3–6). The sequence made it implausible that withdrawal of the RTC motion was a precondition for Strong’s deportation.
Interpol and Prior Warrant: The BI records reflecting an Interpol Red Notice and an earlier warrant against Strong supported the conclusion that Strong’s detention and deportation were driven by international law‑enforcement processes rather than a collusive local arrangement.
Payments Allegation: Rodica’s evidence of withdrawals from a dollar account and several Lazaro Law Office statements of account totaling US$15,250.00 did not substantiate the claim of payments exceeding ₱7 million or the alleged use of funds as payoffs to government officials or third parties. The withdrawals alone did not establish remittances to the law firm or illicit payoffs.
Client Relationship and Representation: The Court noted that Rodica admitted the Lazaro firm was engaged by Strong, not by her; her RTC counsel of record was Atty. Ibutnande. The Lazaro firm’s billings pertained to immigration work for Strong, not to the RTC matter. The Court found no competent evidence that the Lazaro firm negotiated or conditioned Strong’s deportation on Rodica’s withdrawal.
Credibility and Motive: The Court accepted respondents’ explanations over Rodica’s allegations given the documentary record, corroborative statements (including Apostol’s affidavit explaining his condition to buy the property), and RTC findings that Rodica had independently decided to withdraw the motion after “serious thought and deliberation.” The Court observed that a genuine comprehensive settlement among multiple parties would have been reflected in a compromise agreement and b

Case Syllabus (A.C. No. 9259)

Summary / Overview

This is an administrative Complaint for disbarment filed by Jasper Junno F. Rodica against Atty. Manuel "Lolong" M. Lazaro, Atty. Edwin M. Espejo, Atty. Abel M. Almario, Atty. Michelle B. Lazaro, and Atty. Joseph C. Tan, charging gross and serious misconduct, deceit, malpractice, grossly immoral conduct, and violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
The complaint arises from events surrounding the arrest, detention, and subsequent voluntary departure from the Philippines of William Strong, and from related events involving a 353-square-meter Boracay property and a civil suit pending in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Kalibo, Aklan.
The Supreme Court, First Division (DEL CASTILLO, J.), dismissed the disbarment complaint for lack of preponderant evidence and warned Atty. Edwin M. Espejo to be more circumspect and prudent in his actuations.

Parties

Complainant:
- Jasper Junno F. Rodica (Rodica), described as the common-law partner or “handyman” of William Strong in the pleadings and complaint.
Respondents:
- Atty. Manuel "Lolong" M. Lazaro (Atty. Manuel), partner at M.M. Lazaro & Associates Law Office (Lazaro Law Office).
- Atty. Edwin M. Espejo (Atty. Espejo), junior associate at Lazaro Law Office.
- Atty. Abel M. Almario (Atty. Almario), senior associate at Lazaro Law Office.
- Atty. Michelle B. Lazaro (Atty. Michelle), senior associate at Lazaro Law Office.
- Atty. Joseph C. Tan (Atty. Tan), senior partner at Marcos Ochoa Serapio Tan and Associates (MOST Law), counsel for Hillview and Dornau in the RTC case.
- John Does (unnamed parties alleged as involved).

Factual Antecedents

May 5, 2011: William Strong, an American, was arrested and detained by operatives of the Bureau of Immigration pursuant to an Interpol Red Notice; he was wanted in Brazil for alleged crimes including conspiracy to commit fraud and related offenses.
Strong sought assistance from Philip G. Apostol, who referred him to Atty. Manuel of Lazaro Law Office; Atty. Manuel initially declined due to office policy but eventually agreed as a special favor after Apostol’s persuasion.
Atty. Manuel, with Atty. Almario and Atty. Espejo, met Strong at the Taguig Detention Center to discuss terms and fees; Strong offered a US$100,000 success fee to expedite his release and departure from the Philippines to any country except Brazil.
Strong mentioned he owned a Boracay property and that Rodica had filed an RTC complaint in Kalibo (Civil Case No. 8987) for recovery of possession and damages against Hillview Marketing Corporation (also referred to as Hillview Equities and Resources, Inc.), Stephanie Dornau (president of Hillview), Alargo Park Neighborhood Association, and spouses Robert and Judy Gregoire.
Strong denied participation in the alleged Brazilian crimes and pleaded for deportation to avoid Brazil; he later filed a Manifestation with Omnibus Motion to voluntarily leave the country.
May 25, 2011: Bureau of Immigration rendered judgment granting Strong’s motion to voluntarily leave the country.
May 31, 2011: Strong left the Philippines.
June 3 or June 6, 2011: Rodica filed a Manifestation with Motion to Withdraw Motion for Reconsideration (dates vary in pleadings and court records), effecting the withdrawal of her RTC motion for reconsideration; the RTC granted the withdrawal and later commented on Rodica’s capacity for deliberation in making that choice.
Rodica later filed the instant administrative disbarment complaint alleging deceit, extortion of more than P7 million, misrepresentation, and collusion among respondents to secure Strong’s deportation and to have her withdraw the RTC case.

Allegations in the Complaint (Rodica’s Claims)

Respondent attorneys (Atty. Manuel, Atty. Michelle, Atty. Espejo, Atty. Almario) misrepresented that withdrawal of the RTC case was only the first step in an overall settlement package with her adversaries, which Atty. Manuel had allegedly arranged.
The Lazaro Law Office extorted from Rodica more than P7 million for alleged professional/legal fees and penalties related to Strong’s immigration case; alleged that the funds were used as pay-offs to immigration, police, Malacañang officials, and Atty. Joseph Tan as graft or payoff for expediting Strong’s voluntary deportation.
Respondents denied her client status to evade responsibility.
Respondents submitted fabricated stories and documents to the RTC to cover up their actions, including misrepresentations about Atty. Apostol’s purchase bid, and alleged fabrication regarding who signed the documents effecting withdrawal.
Atty. Joseph C. Tan allegedly acted as conduit for Malacañang patronage and participated in orchestrating Strong’s arrest and the conditions for his deportation as part of the “settlement package.”

Respondents’ Assertions and Comments

Atty. Almario and Atty. Espejo:
- Admitted presence at the May 13, 2011 meeting with Rodica.
- Denied that Atty. Manuel communicated with Atty. Tan during the meeting or relayed that Atty. Tan initiated Strong’s arrest.
- Disputed that the withdrawal of the RTC case was a precondition to Strong’s departure; pointed out the Manifestation to Withdraw was filed after the Bureau of Immigration judgment and after Strong left the country.
- Atty. Espejo admitted preparing and signing the Manifestation with Motion to Withdraw Motion for Reconsideration at Rodica’s request, and admitted including the Lazaro Law Office name and names of partners without prior knowledge or consent of superiors, claiming he acted to assist Rodica as a friend.
Atty. Manuel:
- Contended none of Lazaro Law Office lawyers communicated with Atty. Tan regarding deportation or the RTC case.
- Argued it was improbable to coordinate the withdrawal of the RTC case to expedite Strong’s deportation as the RTC case had been dismissed by March 29, 2011 for failure to state a cause of action—before Lazaro Law Office was engaged.
- Maintained the deportation and RTC cases are incongruous and unrelated.
Atty. Joseph C. Tan:
- Denied allegations as mere double hearsay and denied participating in Strong’s arrest or deportation, or communicating with respondents about Strong’s case.
- Pointed out chronological inconsistencies: Rodica’s withdrawal filings occurred after Strong’s deportation, and Atty. Tan had already obtained favorable RTC rulings for his clients before Strong’s arrest.

Issue Presented

Whether the allegations in Rodica’s Compla