Gerodias v. Riveral
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Sanny L. Gerodias (Gerodias), a former employee of Oriental Port and Allied Services Corporation (OPASCOR), filed a disbarment complaint against Attorneys Tomas A. Riveral (President and General Manager of OPASCOR), Annabel G. Pulvera-Page (Corporate Secretary of OPASCOR), and Lorena M. Supatan (lawyer in Riveral's firm). Gerodias had undergone disciplinary investigations for various infractions, including theft of company property. Instead of termination, OPASCOR offered him voluntary resignation with separation pay. Gerodias requested early retirement, which was approved by Riveral despite Gerodias being short of two years for the program. Gerodias received retirement pay. A month later, Gerodias filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against OPASCOR, which was dismissed for lack of merit by the Labor Arbiter and affirmed by the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). OPASCOR also filed a criminal complaint for qualified theft against Gerodias. Procedural History: Gerodias filed a disbarment complaint against the respondent lawyers, alleging they violated the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) by conspiring to dismiss him. He accused them of representing conflicting interests, issuing conflicting Secretary's Certificates, and improper receipt of pleadings. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) recommended the dismissal of the administrative case for lack of factual and legal basis. The IBP Board of Governors adopted this recommendation. Subsequently, Gerodias sent a Letter with an Affidavit of Desistance expressing his disinterest in pursuing the case. The Petition: The Supreme Court reviewed the IBP's findings and recommendation to dismiss the complaint.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent lawyers violated the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Lawyer's Oath. Whether there was conspiracy and connivance among the respondent lawyers and OPASCOR's Labor Union President to illegally dismiss Gerodias. Whether Riveral acted in bad faith in approving Gerodias' early retirement. Whether the issuance of two Secretary's Certificates by different individuals constituted evidence of conspiracy. Whether Supatan's act of receiving Gerodias' Position Paper indicated connivance.
Ruling
The Supreme Court adopted the findings of fact of the IBP and approved the recommendation to dismiss the complaint against respondents Riveral, Pulvera-Page, and Supatan for lack of merit. The Court held that the complainant failed to present convincing proof to substantiate the charges.
Ratio Decidendi
On the alleged violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Lawyer's Oath: The Court found no violation. Riveral, as President and General Manager, approved Gerodias' early retirement in good faith, accommodating his request despite being short of the required service years. This act was considered benevolent and not indicative of bad faith, malice, or ill will. The presumption of good faith in Riveral's favor stands. The issuance of two Secretary's Certificates by Pulvera-Page (Corporate Secretary) and Geyrosaga (Recording Secretary) was sanctioned under OPASCOR's Amended By-Laws. The corporation's power to sue and be sued can be lodged with the Board of Directors, which may authorize individuals to sign documents. The authorization of two persons to execute Secretary's Certificates is not prohibited and is within the ambit of the law. Supatan's act of receiving Gerodias' Position Paper was a lawful act as an associate of the firm representing OPASCOR; it was her duty to assist the client and receive pleadings. This act does not imply conspiracy or connivance. On the alleged conspiracy and connivance: The Court reiterated the settled rule that mere allegation of conspiracy is not evidence and does not equate to proof. The burden of proof rests upon the complainant, who must establish the case by clear, convincing, and satisfactory proof. Gerodias failed to discharge this burden. The Court noted that the complainant seemed prone to filing baseless disbarment cases. On Riveral's approval of early retirement: The IBP properly found that Riveral did not act in bad faith. Approving early retirement, which provided a better package than termination, was a benevolent act. There was no evidence presented to show bad faith, malice, or ill will on his part, thus upholding the presumption of good faith. On the two Secretary's Certificates: The Court agreed with the IBP that the issuance of two Secretary's Certificates was sanctioned by OPASCOR's Amended By-Laws and a Director's Certificate. The corporation's by-laws allowed the Board of Directors to authorize individuals to sign documents. The fact that both Pulvera-Page and Geyrosaga were authorized did not connote connivance or conspiracy to terminate Gerodias' employment. The Court found no error or illegality in this practice. On Supatan's receipt of the Position Paper: The Court found it unfathomable how Supatan's act of receiving Gerodias' Position Paper could imply conspiracy. As an associate of the law firm representing OPASCOR, it was her duty to receive pleadings filed in the labor case. This act was deemed lawful and did not violate the CPR or the Lawyer's Oath.
Main Doctrine
Mere allegation of conspiracy is not evidence and not equivalent to proof. The burden of proof rests upon the complainant and the case must be established by clear, convincing and satisfactory proof. The acts of lawyers in representing clients, even if they are officers of a corporation, are presumed to be in good faith unless proven otherwise.