7/7/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Further, Atty. Adame asserted that Atty. Sevandal was the one vehemently against the filing of the case at the NLRC and his entry of appearances at the NLRC mandatory conferences as counsel for Merlina, as well as his objections to Atty. Adame's representation, was self-serving. Atty. Adame added that in all the pleadings from the parties in the NLRC case, Atty. Sevandal was not included as a counsel on record, but was merely allowed to be present in the proceedings as a mere bystander.[24] Atty. Adame expressed that she did not object to Merlina's generous offer to give the amount of P300,000.00 to Atty. Sevandal, being the uncle of her deceased husband, in order to expedite the NLRC case. The said amount was given to Atty. Sevandal during the last hearing and where Atty. Sevandal was made to sign a document entitled "Sum of Money and Release of Attorney's Lien." However, despite receiving said amount and signing the quitclaim, Atty. Sevandal harbored ill feelings against her, when she only did her duty and successfully finished the case in a span of two months.[25] Lastly, Atty. Adame stated that there was no encroachment of professional employment of another lawyer to speak of since the Retainer Contract refers to properties already acquired and which had to be recovered or restored to Merlina as the first wife of Camilo, but had nothing to do with the money claim for death benefits of her late husband's employment as a seafarer. Also, the scope of the Retainer Contract covered litigation of a case at the RTC level only.[26] The IBP's Report and Recommendation On February 2, 2013, the Investigating Commissioner of the IBP-CBD issued a Report and Recommendation[27] finding that Atty. Adame did not encroach on the professional employment of Atty. Sevandal nor commit any falsehood. The dispositive portion of the Report and Recommendation states: In view of the foregoing premises, it is respectfully recommended that the instant complaint be dismissed for lack of merit. MOREOVER, it is respectfully recommended that an order be made directing complainant to explain why he should not be held administratively liable for encroaching upon the professional services of respondent with client and for receiving Php300,000 as attorney's fees in the NLRC case considering that complainant has neither authority to appear nor has he rendered any service for the client on the said NLRC case. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.[28] The Investigating Commissioner held that Atty. Adame did not violate Rule 8.02, Canon 8 of the CPR. The Investigating Commissioner stated that the Retainer Contract dated 9 March 2011 relied upon by Atty. Sevandal as his basis that Atty. Adame allegedly encroached on his professional services covered the litigation at the level of the RTC only. Thus, the NLRC case was not covered by Atty. Sevandal's engagement with his client, Merlina. Also, Merlina even declared in writing and in open court that Atty. Adame was her counsel of choice, which repudiated Atty. Sevandal's claim.[29] https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66937 4/10