G.R. No. A.C. No. 12719 (Formerly CBD Case No. 17-5316), February 17, 2021
Sanny L. Gerodias, Complainant, vs. Atty. Tomas A. Riveral, Atty. Annabel G. Pulvera-Page, and Atty. Lorena M. Supatan, Respondents.

FACTS

Complainant Sanny L. Gerodias, a former employee of Oriental Port and Allied Services Corporation (OPASCOR), filed a disbarment complaint against respondents Atty. Tomas A. Riveral (President and General Manager of OPASCOR), Atty. Annabel G. Pulvera-Page (Corporate Secretary of OPASCOR and lawyer at Riveral, Pulvera & Associates), and Atty. Lorena M. Supatan (a lawyer at the same firm). Gerodias alleged they violated the Code of Professional Responsibility by conspiring to cause his dismissal from employment.
Gerodias had a history of disciplinary issues at OPASCOR, culminating in an incident involving the theft of a box of perfumes. Instead of termination, OPASCOR, through Riveral, approved Gerodias’s request for early retirement—despite him being two years short of the required 15 years of service—and paid him a substantial retirement package. A month after receiving payment, Gerodias filed an illegal dismissal case against OPASCOR, which was dismissed by the Labor Arbiter and affirmed by the NLRC. OPASCOR also filed a qualified theft complaint against him.
In his disbarment complaint, Gerodias accused: (1) Jessielou Cadungog (Labor Union President and an appointed OPASCOR director) of representing conflicting interests; (2) Pulvera-Page of conspiracy, evidenced by her representation of OPASCOR and individual respondents in the labor case and by signing a Secretary’s Certificate for OPASCOR while another person, Mary Lou Z. Geyrosaga, also signed a similar certificate as corporate secretary; and (3) Supatan of connivance because she received a copy of his Position Paper in the labor case.
Respondents denied the allegations. Riveral and Pulvera-Page asserted Gerodias voluntarily retired, and no Board decision terminated him. They explained that both Pulvera-Page (Corporate Secretary) and Geyrosaga (Recording Secretary) were authorized to issue Secretary’s Certificates per OPASCOR’s Amended By-Laws. Supatan argued that receiving a pleading as an associate of the law firm representing OPASCOR was a routine, lawful act.
The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) recommended dismissal of the complaint for lack of factual and legal basis, a recommendation adopted by the IBP Board of Governors. Gerodias later submitted an Affidavit of Desistance expressing disinterest in pursuing the case.

ISSUE

Whether respondents Atty. Tomas A. Riveral, Atty. Annabel G. Pulvera-Page, and Atty. Lorena M. Supatan violated the Code of Professional Responsibility and should be administratively disciplined.

RULING

The Court DISMISSED the administrative case against all respondents for lack of merit.
The Court upheld the IBP’s findings, emphasizing that a disciplinary charge requires convincing proof, and lawyers are presumed innocent absent such proof. The Court found no violation of the CPR or Lawyer’s Oath.
1. As to Atty. Riveral: His approval of Gerodias’s early retirement request—a benevolent act granting more benefits than standard separation pay—was done in good faith and without evidence of bad faith, malice, or ill will. It did not violate any professional canon.
2. As to Atty. Pulvera-Page: Her signing of a Secretary’s Certificate as Corporate Secretary was authorized under OPASCOR’s Amended By-Laws and a Director’s Certificate. The fact that another authorized officer (Geyrosaga) also issued certificates did not prove conspiracy. The corporation’s act of authorizing multiple signatories is lawful.
3. As to Atty. Supatan: Her act of receiving Gerodias’s Position Paper as an associate of the law firm representing OPASCOR in the labor case was a routine, duty-bound legal service and did not indicate conspiracy.
The Court concluded that Gerodias failed to present clear, convincing, and satisfactory proof to substantiate his allegations of conspiracy. Mere allegations are not equivalent to proof. The complaint was baseless.