7/7/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Also, the Investigating Commissioner declared that on the contrary, it was Atty. Sevandal who encroached upon and meddled with the legal services and professional engagement provided by Atty. Adame to Merlina in the NLRC case by attending the NLRC hearings even without Merlina's authority. Further, Atty. Sevandal was awarded the amount of P300,000.00[30] as attorney's fees, without having done or filed anything to advance the interests of Merlina with the NLRC.[31] The Investigating Commissioner observed that Atty. Sevandal's own evidence, the Addendum to Retainer Contract, was doubtful for several reasons: (1) the Addendum did not amend or expand the scope of Atty. Sevandal's engagement as provided in the Retainer Contract, which was still limited to the RTC level only, and (2) there were two different versions of the Addendum – (a) Annex "B" of the Complaint, and (b) Annex "13" of Respondent's Position Paper and the last paragraph of the first version does not appear on the last paragraph of the second version.[32] Lastly, the Investigating Commissioner held that Atty. Adame is not guilty of violating Rule 10.01, Canon 10 of the CPR. In the Complaint, Atty. Sevandal alleged that Atty. Adame falsely averred in her Opposition/Manifestation dated July 7, 2011 filed with the NLRC that (1) Merlina denied signing any Addendum giving 20% fee to Atty. Sevandal despite Atty. Sevandal's submission of a copy of the Addendum on May 9, 2011 to the NLRC, and (2) Merlina's statement in the Revocation to the Retainer Contract that she did not give any written authority to Atty. Sevandal to claim for death benefits and instead engaged the services of Atty. Adame and Atty. Eviota. The Investigating Commissioner stated that by Atty. Sevandal's own declaration, the alleged false statements were made by Merlina and not by Atty. Adame. Thus, Atty. Adame cannot be held liable for allegedly false statements merely relayed to her by Merlina.[33] Thereafter, in the Notice of Resolution No. XX-2013-362[34] dated March 21, 2013, the IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner, finding the same to be fully supported by the evidence on record and the applicable laws and rules, and dismissed the case for lack of merit. Atty. Sevandal filed a Motion for Reconsideration which was denied in Notice of Resolution No. XXI-2014-128[35] dated March 22, 2014. In the same Resolution, the IBP directed Atty. Sevandal to show cause why he should not be held administratively liable for encroaching into the professional services of Atty. Adame and receiving P300,000.00 as attorney's fees having rendered no service and without any authority to appear in the NLRC case. Atty. Sevandal filed a Compliance with Show Cause Resolution[36] dated December 14, 2015. Thereafter, the IBP-CBD issued a Report and Recommendation[37] finding Atty. Sevandal guilty of encroaching into the professional services of Atty. Adame and recommended that Atty. Sevandal be suspended from the practice of law for two (2) years and to return the amount of P300,000.00 to the client. In a Resolution[38] dated November 28, 2017, the IBP Board of Governors adopted the findings of fact and recommendation of the IBP-CBD. https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66937 5/10