7/7/2021
E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
On June 17, 2011, Atty. Sevandal filed an Ex-Parte Motion for Attorney's Lien,
equivalent to 20% of whatever amount would be awarded to Merlina, as agreed upon
under the Addendum to Retainer Contract.[15]
On July 7, 2011, Atty. Adame filed an Opposition/Manifestation[16] (to the Ex-Parte
Motion for Attorney's Lien) stating that she caused the filing of the NLRC complaint.
Atty. Adame alleged that Atty. Sevandal has no basis for claiming attorney's fees since
Merlina "vehemently denies having signed any addendum contract giving 20% fee to
Atty. Sevandal."[17] Atty. Adame added that the Retainer Contract dated March 9, 2011
was annulled/made void by Merlina through a Revocation of Retainer Contract dated
May 24, 2011.
In an Order dated August 1, 2011, the Labor Arbiter approved the Compromise
Agreement entered into by Merlina and Bandila Maritime and the amount of
P300,000.00 attorney's fees was awarded to Atty. Sevandal. Atty. Sevandal was made
to sign a general release and quitclaim, captioned as Sum of Money and Release of
Attorney's Lien, to absolve and release Bandila Maritime from any and all claims.[18]
On September 6, 2011, Atty. Sevandal filed the disbarment complaint against Atty.
Adame with the IBP-CBD.
In her Answer[19] dated October 4, 2011, Atty. Adame denied the allegations that she
violated the CPR. Atty. Adame expressed that while she was not privy to the Retainer
Contract executed by Atty. Sevandal and Merlina, the same had no relation to the case
she filed with the NLRC since the Retainer Contract was made exclusively for the filing
of civil cases at the RTC level only. Atty. Adame stated that Merlina executed a
Revocation of Retainer Contract[20] dated May 24, 2011 revoking, annulling and voiding
the Retainer Contract because of misrepresentations, threats, abuse of confidence and
conflict of interests with Atty. Sevandal. Also, Atty. Adame posited that Merlina denied
signing any Addendum to Retainer Contract and that Atty. Sevandal did not even
submit an original copy of the alleged Addendum to the NLRC and the IBP, but only
mere photocopies which were questionable in its content and accompanying signatures.
Atty. Adame argued that since the Retainer Contract had been revoked by Merlina, then
it should follow that the alleged Addendum had also been revoked.[21]
Likewise, Atty. Adame declared that Atty. Sevandal's misleading assertions of alleged
pending payment before DRPI in settlement of Merlina's claims was denied by DRPI's
counsel during the NLRC mandatory conference on May 30, 2011 while in open session
and in the presence of the Labor Arbiter and all parties, including Atty. Sevandal
himself.[22]
Atty. Adame objected to Atty. Sevandal's allegation that Merlina agreed to the
withdrawal of the NLRC complaint. Atty. Adame clarified that (1) Merlina filed a
Manifestation on May 25, 2011 to the NLRC that she appointed Atty. Adame as her
lawful attorney-in-fact on May 3, 2011 and Atty. Adame had the sole authority and
discretion relevant to the case she filed before the NLRC, and (2) Merlina declared in
the NLRC open session on May 30, 2011 that she chose Atty. Adame as her legal
counsel.[23]
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66937
3/10