Court warns on disbarment cases

The Supreme Court has bewailed the filing of “malicious suits” against lawyers as a way of getting back at them, but said it will impose disciplinary action against the members of the Bar only when there is substantial evidence to hold them administratively liable.

In an en banc decision written by Chief Justice Diosdado Peralta, the high court said it will wield its power to disbar only when substantial evidence proved the lack of fitness to engage in the practice of law.

“The primary purpose of administrative disciplinary proceedings against delinquent lawyers is to uphold the law and to prevent the ranks of the legal profession from being corrupted by unscrupulous practices—not to shelter or nurse a wounded ego,” the high court said.

“In disbarment proceedings, the quantum of proof is substantial evidence and the burden of proof is on the complainant to establish the allegations in his complaint … the Court finds that complainant failed to discharge his burden of proof as he did not establish his claims through relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support the conclusion that Atty. Alvarico is guilty of representing conflicting interests and betrayal of trust and confidence reposed in him by his client Manco.”

The high court made the warning as it dismissed the disbarment complaint filed against James Roulyn R. Alvarico by businessman Wilson B. Tan who lodged a criminal case for theft against the lawyer’s client, Blas Fier Manco, before the Dumaguete City regional trial court in 2017.

In the civil aspect of his complaint, Tan demanded that Manco pay P350,000 plus P50,000 for every month of delay for the stolen steering wheel which reportedly costs only P28,000 in the market.

The complainant alleged that Alvarico approached him personally and tried to convince him for the settlement of the civil aspect of the case provided the lawyer would be given 15 per cent commission.

He also claimed that he and Alvarico met several times but failed in the settlement talks because the lawyer insisted in his demand for a 15 per cent commission.

According to the complainant, Alvarico violated Rule 15 .03 and Canon 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and should be disbarred since the lawyer allegedly committed conflict of interests and betrayal of trust and confidence against his client Manco.

The lawyer denied the charges in the complaint as “utterly baseless, fabricated and unfounded.”

He said he met with Tan to iron out a settlement on the behest of his client Alvarico, and that there was no conflict of interest because he never represented conflicting interests but solely the interest of his client whom he always kept informed of the results of his meetings with Tan.

On Nov. 22, 2017, after investigation, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines’ investigating commissioner recommended the dismissal of the disbarment complaint.