Galao v. Manlapao, Jr., A.C. No.

9415 (Notice), June 30, 2021

Facts:

The present disbarment case, stemmed from two Illegal dismissal cases, filed by several security guards
sometime In September 2010 against Maricalum Mining Corporation Security Force (MMCSF) and "G"
Holdings, Inc. (GHI), where Atty. Edmundo G. Manlapao, Jr. (Atty. Manlapao) stood as counsel for the
security guards.

The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of the security guards. Consequently, GHI appealed to the National
Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). MMCSF, through its general manager Salvador G. Galao (Galao),
also appealed.

On August 1, 2011, pending appeal, security guards Carnazo, Sinahon, dela Cruz and Gumban (Carnazo,
et al.) withdrew the authority they have given to Atty. Manlapao to represent them in the illegal
dismissal cases. Subsequently, Carnazo, et al., entered into a Compromise Agreement with MMCSF,
signed Waiver and Quitclaims releasing MMCSF from liabilities in exchange for the settlement of their
wages and monetary claims, and filed individual motions to dismiss the cases. However, on August 24,
2011, Atty. Manlapao opposed the motions to dismiss, contending that he had no knowledge of the
filing of these pleadings.

Carnazo, et al., reiterated in a letter addressed to the NLRC Commissioner that they have withdrawn
Atty. Manlapao's authority and clarified that they did not authorize Atty. Manlapao to file the
Opposition to their motions to dismiss. Eventually, on December 8, 2011, the NLRC granted Carnazo, et
al.'s motions to dismiss and approved the compromise agreements.

On January 9, 2012, Atty. Manlapao filed a Motion for Reconsideration (MR) of the NLRC's decision
granting Carnazo, et al.'s motions to dismiss. Although the MR was verified only by Hallara and a certain
Jessie Escosura, Atty. Manlapao claimed that he represented all the security guards. complainants.

Subsequently, the NLRC denied Atty. Manlapao's MR. On March 13. 2012, despite the letters of
withdrawal of authority, Atty. Manlapao still filed a Manifestation stating that the January 9, 2012 MR
was filed in representation of all the security guards-complainants, including Carazo. Hence, Salvador G.
Galao (Galao) filed the present disbarment case against Atty. Manlapao.

Issue:

Ruling:

Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court provides that a lawyer may be disbarred or suspended for,
among others, corruptly or willfully appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without authority so
to do.

CANON 8 - A LAWYER SHALL CONDUCT HIMSELF WITH COURTESY, FAIRNESS AND CANDOR TOWARDS
HIS PROFESSIONAL COLLEAGUES, AND SHALL AVOID HARASSING TACTICS AGAINST OPPOSING COUNSEL.
CANON 10 - A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND GOOD FAITH TO THE COURT.

Rule 10.01 - A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in Court; nor shall he
mislead, or allow the Court to be misled by any artifice.

In this case, Atty. Manlapao is guilty of willfully appearing as counsel without authority. He filed a MR
claiming that he represented all security guards and a Manifestation reiterating that all the security
guards filed the MR.

However, Atty. Manlapao knew fully well, that some of his clients had already withdrawn their authority
and had already entered into compromise agreements with MMCSF. By filing these pleadings, he
misled, or allowed the trial court to be misled, as regards his authority to represent individuals who
had already ceased to be his clients. He also failed to observe candor towards the opposing party.

Penalty: FINED P5,000.00. He is STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of similar infractions in the future
shall be dealt with more severely.