G.R. No. A.C. No. 9152, July 1, 2020
Atty. Rolex T. Suplico and CBD Atty. Demaree J.B. Raval, Petitioners, vs. Atty. Luis K. Lokin, Jr. and Atty. Salvador C. Hizon, Respondents

FACTS

Petitioners Atty. Rolex T. Suplico and Atty. Demaree J.B. Raval filed a disbarment complaint against their former law partners, respondents Atty. Luis K. Lokin, Jr. and Atty. Salvador C. Hizon, before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Commission on Bar Discipline. The complaint alleged violation of Rule 7.03, Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Lawyer’s Oath for respondents’ refusal to turnover the petitioners’ shares from attorney’s fees amounting to P144,831,371.49, which represented 40% of the P362,078,428.74 recovered by Aerocom Investors & Managers, Inc. (Aerocom) from the Presidential Commission on Good Government in Civil Case No. 0044 before the Sandiganbayan. The parties were former partners in the law firm “Raval Suplico and Lokin, Lawyers,” which had a profit-sharing agreement: 30% to Atty. Hizon and the remaining 70% divided equally among Atty. Raval, Atty. Suplico, and Atty. Lokin. Petitioners claimed Aerocom entered into an agreement with the law firm for legal services subject to a 40% contingent fee. Simultaneously, petitioners filed a criminal case for Estafa against respondents, which was later dismissed for lack of probable cause.
Respondents denied the allegations, asserting that petitioners had already received their respective shares based on their participation in the Aerocom case and were no longer entitled to further amounts due to executed quitclaims and their withdrawal from the law firm. Atty. Suplico executed a Release, Waiver and Quitclaim dated July 8, 2000, effective January 15, 1995, releasing the firm from any obligations arising from his partnership. Atty. Raval allegedly withdrew from the partnership in May 1999 and waived his rights to attorney’s fees in exchange for the Amberland office space. Respondents contended that these acts dissolved “Raval Suplico and Lokin, Lawyers,” which was succeeded by “Raval Lokin, Lawyers.”
The IBP Investigating Commissioner recommended dismissal of the disbarment case, finding no evidence of a retainer agreement for a 40% attorney’s fee, as petitioners failed to produce a copy, and Aerocom’s President and Corporate Secretary denied its existence. The IBP Board of Governors adopted this recommendation and denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration.

ISSUE

Whether respondents should be disbarred for allegedly violating Rule 7.03, Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility by refusing to turnover the petitioners’ shares from the attorney’s fees in the Aerocom case.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the disbarment case against respondents. In disbarment proceedings, the burden of proof rests on the complainant, requiring clear, convincing, and satisfactory evidence. Petitioners failed to establish the existence of a 40% attorney’s fee agreement between Aerocom and the law firm. They could not produce a written agreement, and Aerocom’s President and Corporate Secretary denied such an arrangement. The affidavit of Atty. Jessica A. Los Banos, a former lawyer at the firm, did not substantiate the claim, as she did not indicate her source of information about the 40% fee. Additionally, the Sandiganbayan documents presented only pertained to the execution of the judgment, not the fee agreement.
The Court also noted that Atty. Suplico’s executed Release, Waiver and Quitclaim, which he never refuted, discharged the law firm from any obligations from his partnership effective January 15, 1995, including fees from the Aerocom case where the Writ of Execution was issued in 1999. Atty. Raval’s withdrawal from the partnership and waiver of his share in the fees in exchange for the Amberland office space remained unrebutted. As seasoned lawyers, petitioners were presumed to have executed these documents voluntarily and with full knowledge of their consequences.
Thus, petitioners did not prove that respondents committed deceit, fraud, or misconduct warranting disbarment. The IBP’s recommendation was upheld, and the case was closed and terminated.