A.C. No. 10933, November 03, 2020
Wilson B. Tan, Complainant, vs. Atty. James Roulyn R. Alvarico, Respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Wilson B. Tan, the offended party in a theft case, filed an administrative complaint for disbarment against respondent Atty. James Roulyn R. Alvarico, counsel for the accused. Tan alleged that Atty. Alvarico personally approached him to propose a settlement of the criminal case, demanding a 15% commission from the settlement amount as his fee for facilitating the agreement. Tan countered with a 5% offer, but the settlement allegedly failed due to Alvarico’s insistence on the higher commission. Tan contended this conduct violated the lawyer’s duty of loyalty, creating a conflict of interest and betraying his client’s trust, as the negotiations were purportedly conducted without the client’s knowledge and for Alvarico’s personal monetary gain.
Atty. Alvarico denied all allegations. He asserted he approached Tan solely at the behest and with the consent of his client, the accused, to explore amicable settlement, which is a legitimate part of his defense strategy. He categorically denied ever demanding any commission. His client executed an affidavit confirming he authorized the settlement talks and was present during the initial discussion, where he heard no demand for a commission. Alvarico argued that his failure to cross-examine Tan on this point during the criminal trial was because the allegation was immaterial to the theft charge and was an outrageous fabrication.
ISSUE
Whether Atty. James Roulyn R. Alvarico should be administratively disciplined for alleged conflict of interest and betrayal of client trust for negotiating a settlement and demanding a commission.
RULING
The Court dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. In administrative cases, the burden of proof rests on the complainant, and the evidence must be clear, convincing, and substantial. Here, Tan’s allegations were uncorroborated and consisted solely of his own assertions. In contrast, Atty. Alvarico presented a credible denial supported by his client’s sworn statement affirming he authorized the settlement talks and witnessed no demand for a commission. The Court found the client’s affidavit, which directly contradicted the core of Tan’s accusation, to be highly persuasive.
The act of a defense counsel initiating settlement talks with the offended party, when done with the client’s knowledge and consent, is not inherently improper and can be a prudent exercise of legal strategy. The Court found no evidence that Alvarico represented conflicting interests or acted without his client’s authority. Tan failed to substantiate his claim of a demanded commission with clear and convincing evidence. Therefore, the Court held that the complainant did not meet the required quantum of proof to warrant the severe penalty of disbarment or any other administrative sanction against the respondent.