Title
Suplico vs. Lokin, Jr.
Case
A.C. No. 9152
Decision Date
Jul 1, 2020
Former law partners filed a disbarment complaint over unpaid attorney's fees, but the Supreme Court dismissed it due to lack of evidence and valid quitclaims.

Case Summary (A.C. No. 9152)

Overview of Complaint and Allegations

Petitioners assailed Resolution No. XIX-2011-484 issued by the IBP Board of Governors, which dismissed the disbarment complaint against the respondents, alleging violations of legal ethics. The core issue involved a claimed entitlement to a share of attorney's fees amounting to over P144 million from a case where Aerocom Investors & Managers, Inc. was awarded a significant settlement. Petitioners contended that the respondents refused to turn over their rightful shares from the attorney's fees, claiming the amount was based on an agreement stipulating a 40% fee from the recovery awarded to Aerocom.

Respondents' Position

The respondents denied the allegations, asserting that the petitioners had already received their portions of the fees. They referenced quitclaim agreements executed by the petitioners, suggesting that these agreements absolved the partnership of any financial obligations toward them. Additionally, respondents claimed that Atty. Raval had minimal involvement in the Aerocom case, as he had other commitments outside the firm.

Investigating Commissioner’s Findings

The Investigating Commissioner, Jose I. De la Rama, Jr., issued a report recommending the dismissal of the disbarment case on grounds of lack of merit. The report emphasized the absence of a corroborated retainer agreement outlining the purported 40% attorney's fees. The President and Corporate Secretary of Aerocom denied the existence of such an agreement, corroborating the respondents' position. The investigating report highlighted that the petitioners failed to produce evidence of the alleged fee structure and confirmed that Atty. Suplico had executed a quitclaim releasing any rights to the firm.

IBP Board’s Resolutions

The IBP Board of Governors adopted the Investigating Commissioner’s recommendations and dismissed the complaint in February 2009. Subsequently, they issued Resolution No. XIX-2011-484, which denied the petitioners’ motion for reconsideration, reaffirming the earlier dismissal.

Legal Standards for Disbarment Proceedings

The court reiterated that, in disbarment cases, the burden of proof lies with the complainant, who must establish the case against the respondent with clear, convincing, and satisfactory evidence. Given the serious implications associated with disbarment, the court maintained that substantial preponderant evidence is necessary to substantiate any claims against an attorney.

Court’s Conclusion

In reviewing the evidence, the court found a deficiency in the proof regarding the attorney's fees agr

...continue reading

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.