3/30/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly and FV/JVPHIL 11) were apprehended and impounded by the PCG in Bolinao, Pangasinan and he worked and exerted extra efforts for their successful release from PCG custody. [10] Also, Atty. Doctor rendered legal services in the cases pending before the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) for violation of labor laws and alleged illegal recruitment. He was requested by complainant to be her counsel in the administrative case before the BFAR.[11] Although, in the first four cases, which Atty. Doctor handled for complainant, the subject matters involved were extremely important, which required so much labor, time, and trouble, not only in litigation but close coordination and appearance before concerned agencies of the government, he only charged complainant a reasonable acceptance fee of P10,000.00 to P20,000.00 for each case and an appearance fee of P3,000.00 to P7,000.00, depending on the distance of his residence to the place of court appearance/litigation. Atty. Doctor was not able to collect his acceptance fee and attorney's fee in the other cases for which he was hired by complainant, i.e., cases before the DOLE in San Fernando City, Pampanga and Olongapo City, Zambales, the Ombudsman, BFAR and MARINA.[12] Atty. Doctor averred that he acted as counsel for complainant from April 2011 to July 23, 2011, when he suffered a stroke which affected his mobility and speech. Even then, he forced himself to attend the scheduled hearing of complainant on a wheelchair and with the aid of a walking cane. Complainant went to his residence and was able to see for herself his actual medical condition. He was able to attend the BFAR hearing scheduled on August 5, 2011. Atty. Doctor believes that herein complainant is not a proper party with respect to matters and issues which are personal and exclusive between him and his Taiwanese clients in the cases pending before the RTC and the administrative case before the BFAR. He further argued that the recitals of complainant, particularly paragraphs 4, 5, 6 and 8 of the complaint (i.e., pertaining to the delivery of the cited amount from complainant to Atty. Doctor), constitute privileged communication covered under the attorney client relationship. Without the consent or waiver of his Taiwanese clients, he cannot be at liberty to discuss and answer the allegations of complainant.[13] IBP Report and Recommendation The Report and Recommendation[14] of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) dated April 25, 2016 recommended the imposition of disciplinary action against Atty. Doctor for committing acts contrary to and violative of Canon 16 and Canon 18, respectively, of the Code of Professional Responsibility and imposed the penalty of suspension from the practice of law for six months with a stem warning that his commission of a similar offense will be dealt with more severely.[15] The IBP-CBD found Atty. Doctor's defense of denial and his assertion of privileged communication between a lawyer and his client, particularly as to his answer to paragraphs 4, 5, 6 and 8 of the complaint (i.e., pertaining to the delivery of the cited amount from complainant to Atty. Doctor), are without merit. Atty. Doctor did not https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66125 3/9