ADELFA PROPERTIES, INC. vs ATTY.

RESTITUTO MENDOZA
A.C. No. 8608
October 26, 2019

FACTS:
Adelfa Properties, Inc. is a corporation engaged in real estate development. Among their
stockholders are the spouses Senator Manuel Villar and Senator Cynthia Villar. Herein respondent, Atty.
Mendoza was one of the corporation’s in-house counsel. He was transferred from one company to another
because of his inability to blend effectively and efficiently with his co-in house counsels. When an
unfavorable assessment was made by his senior officers, Atty. Mendoza threatened them by claiming that
he has an information and documents and the affidavit containing an account of the alleged illegal acts
and corrupt practices of the company boss and the other affiliated companies. Atty. Mendoza also
threatened that he would give the said affidavit to Senator Panfilo Lacson unless one of the senior officers
meets with him to discuss his concerns. Upon their meeting, Atty. Mendoza admitted that he took part in
the preparation of documents in one of the illegal transactions of Adelfa and/or its affiliates and that he
had information and documents that are damaging to the political career of Senator Villar. Despite being
reminded that Atty. Mendoza is bound by the attorney-client confidentiality rules, he demanded that he be
paid P25, 000, 000, otherwise, he would surrender all the documents he had against Senator Villar.
However, Atty. Mendoza’s demands were not satisfied.
A notice of termination was sent to Atty. Mendoza due to breach of trust and confidence and it
stated that he violated the company’s core values and the pertinent provisions of the Labor Code. He filed
a complaint for illegal dismissal in order to seek justice for his illegal termination and even had himself
interviewed by ABS-CBN TV Patrol to which he claimed that he was dismissed from employment
because he does not want to participate in the corrupt practices of the company. A disbarment complaint
was filed against him, but the Court resolved to refer the case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines in
which it recommended that Atty. Mendoza be suspended from the practice of law for 6 months.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the illegal dismissal is valid

HELD:
The filing of illegal dismissal case against the complainant, and the disclosure of information in
support thereof is not per se a violation of the rule on privileged communication because it was necessary
in order to establish his cause of action against the complainant. Mere allegation without any evidence as
to the specific confidential information allegedly divulged by Atty. Mendoza is difficult, if not impossible
to determine if there was any violation of the rule on privileged communication. Such confidential
information is a crucial link in establishing a breach of the rule on privileged communication between
attorney and client. However, Atty. Mendoza’s actuation of allowing himself to be interviewed by media
is tantamount to a clear breach of trust and confidence of his employer and it constitutes gross misconduct
in his office as attorney, for which a suspension from the practice of law is warranted. The Court found
Atty. Mendoza guilty of violation of Rules 13.02, Canon 21, 21.01 and 21.02 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility for which he is suspended from the practice of law for a period of 6 months with a warning
that a commission of the same or similar offense in the future will result in the imposition of a more
severe penalty.
 APOLINARIO ZUNIO, JR. vs 88 ACES MARITIME SERVICES, INC., ET AL
G. R. No. 239052
October 16, 2019

FACTS:
Petitioner Apolinario was hired as an “ordinary seaman” by 88 Aces Maritime Services, Inc. with
a contract with a duration of 6 months. He was not repatriated after completing his six-month contract as
he directly entered into a new contract with 88 Aces’s foreign principal, Khalifa Algosaibi. His contract
lasted until April 2012 and was repatriated in Manila. Upon his repatriation, he reported to the office of
88 Aces to get his unpaid wages and for him to be referred to the company physician as he was
experiencing dizziness and was found to have high glucose and cholesterol when he was sent to As
Salama Hospital in 2010. However, he was told that 88 Aces could not shoulder his medical expenses
since his repatriation was due to the completion of his six-month POEA-approved employment contract.
On 2013, he was diagnosed with diabetes mellitus by Dr. Dimatatac. The municipal health officer of the
municipality of San Jose also declared him to be physically unfit to continue work due to his
hyperglycemia. Consequently, Apolinario demanded from respondents the payment of his disability
benefits, but to no avail. His arguments were that his illness is presumed as work-related considering the
factors in the development of it- being exposed to frequent overtime, lack of sleep, emotional/
psychological stress being away from his family and that his disability is permanent and total because he
was incapacitated to work for more than 240 days. However, respondents claimed that contrary to
Apolinario’s allegation, he actually failed to comply with the three-day post-employment medical
examination requirement. As such, he cannot be entitled to his money claims, moral, compensatory and
exemplary damages.
The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Apolinario, finding nexus between Apolinario’s nature of
work and his ailment diabetes mellitus. However, NLRC, on the other hand, held that since Apolinario
failed to establish that his illness was work-related, and that he requested for a post-employment medical
examination, his claim for disability benefits must be denied. The CA affirmed the NLRC’s Decision and
denied Apolinario’s claim.

ISSUE:
Whether or not petitioner may claim his disability benefits, attorney’s fees, medical fees, sickness
allowance, and moral, exemplary, and compensatory damages

HELD:
The 2000 POEA-SEC provides that any sickness resulting in disability because of an
occupational disease listed under Sec 32(A) of this Contract is deemed to be work-related, provided the
conditions set therein are satisfied. Sec 20(B)(4) of the 2000 POEA-SEC, on the other hand, declares that
if the illness, such as diabetes mellitus, is not listed as an occupational disease under Sec 32(A), the
ailment is disputably presumed as work-related.
The effect of legal presumption in favor of the seafarer is to create a burden on the part of the
employer to present evidence to overcome the prima facie case of work-relatedness. Absent any evidence
from the employer to defeat the legal presumption, the prima facie case of work-relatedness prevails.
Respondents herein failed to adduce any contrary medical findings from the company-designated
physician to show that Apolinario’s illness was not caused or aggravated by his working conditions on
board the vessel. There was also no showing that Apolinario is predisposed to the illness by reason of
genetics, obesity or old age. Such being the case, the Court considers that the stress and strains he was
exposed to on board contributed to the development of his disease.
Considering that no assessment was made at bar by the company designated physician,
Apolinario is entitled to a sickness allowance. With regard to his claim for attorney’s fees, Art. 2208 of
the New Civil Code provides that attorney’s fees can be recovered in actions for the recovery of wages of
laborers and actions for indemnity under employer’s liability laws. Attorney’s fees is also recoverable
when the respondent’s act or omission has compelled the complainant to incur expenses to protect his
interest. Such conditions present in the case at bar, attorney’s fees is warranted in favor of Apolinario.