7/7/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Pursuant to Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court, the IBP transmitted the documents of this case to the Court. The issue is whether or not the IBP is correct in suspending Atty. Sevandal from the practice of law for two (2) years and in directing him to return the amount of P300,000.00 to the client. The Court's Ruling We modify the recommendation of the IBP. Atty. Sevandal's acts were in direct violation of Rule 8.02, Canon 8 of the CPR, which states: Rule 8.02 - A lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly, encroach upon the professional employment of another lawyer, however, it is the right of any lawyer, without fear or favor, to give proper advice and assistance to those seeking relief against unfaithful or neglectful counsel. It is undisputed that Atty. Sevandal was not the counsel of record in NLRC Case No. NCR OFW (M) 05-06890-11. It was Atty. Adame who filed the complaint with the NLRC and the only counsel on record of Merlina. Atty. Sevandal's insistence that he executed a Retainer Contract and an Addendum to Retainer Contract with Merlina as basis for appearing on her behalf before the NLRC is untenable. First, the Retainer Contract covered services for the recovery of the client's share in the conjugal partnership property acquired during the marriage, as well as her legitime as heir and surviving spouse of her deceased husband. The scope explicitly stated that the contract covers the litigation at the level of the RTC only. Next, the Addendum to Retainer Contract was dubious according to the findings of the IBP since (1) the said Addendum did not amend or expand the scope of Atty. Sevandal's engagement as provided in the Retainer Contract, i.e., still limited to the RTC level only, and (2) it appeared that there were two different versions as annexed in the Complaint and respondent's Position Paper. Also, despite having no authority to represent Merlina in the proceedings before the NLRC, Atty. Sevandal did the following: 1) Filed a formal entry of appearance as counsel on 9 May 2011 in the NLRC case filed by Atty. Adame despite his opposition to the said case since on the same date he filed a Manifestation Re: Withdrawal of Complaint; 2) At the succeeding NLRC mandatory conferences, he entered his appearances as counsel for Merlina and manifested his objections to the appearance of Atty. Adame; and 3) Filed an Ex Parte Motion for Attorney's Lien on 17 June 2011 asking for the payment of his attorney's fee equivalent to 20% of the amount that will be awarded to Merlina and later on received the amount of P300,000.00 as attorney's fees in order "to stop him from meddling in the ongoing settlement before the NLRC." https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66937 6/10