Lawyer Encroachment and Ethical Boundaries: Lessons from Sevandal v. Adame

The Supreme Court's 2020 decision in Sevandal v. Adame (A.C. No. 10571) offers a clear lesson for Philippine lawyers: entering a case where another counsel already holds the client's mandate is not just poor practice—it is a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) that can lead to suspension and an order to return fees.

The case began when two lawyers both claimed to represent the same client, Merlina, in claims arising from the death of her husband, a ship master. The dispute ultimately tested the boundaries of Rule 8.02, Canon 8 of the CPR, which prohibits a lawyer from encroaching upon the professional employment of another lawyer.

The Facts of the Case

In February 2011, Atty. Virgilio Sevandal claimed Merlina engaged his services through a verbal agreement to handle her claims for benefits from her husband's employers and government agencies. A Retainer Contract followed in March 2011, covering recovery of her share in conjugal property and her legitime as heir. That contract expressly limited coverage to litigation at the Regional Trial Court (RTC) level.

Later, Atty. Sevandal alleged he executed an Addendum to the Retainer Contract expanding his engagement to include death and monetary benefits claims before various agencies. However, only photocopies of this Addendum were ever produced, and two different versions surfaced during proceedings.

Meanwhile, in May 2011, Atty. Melita Adame filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) on Merlina's behalf against the shipping companies for death benefits. Atty. Sevandal then entered his appearance at the NLRC, objected to Atty. Adame's representation, and later filed a motion for attorney's lien. He ultimately received P300,000.00 in attorney's fees from the NLRC settlement.

The Issue

The central question was whether Atty. Sevandal violated Rule 8.02, Canon 8 of the CPR by encroaching upon the professional employment of Atty. Adame, and whether the penalty of suspension was proper.

The Ruling

The Supreme Court found Atty. Sevandal guilty of encroaching on Atty. Adame's professional services and suspended him from the practice of law for one year. The Court also ordered him to return the P300,000.00 to the client.

The Court reasoned that Atty. Sevandal was not the counsel of record in the NLRC case—Atty. Adame was. His claimed authority rested on a Retainer Contract that was explicitly limited to RTC litigation, and the Addendum he relied upon was dubious, appearing in two different versions and failing to expand the original contract's scope.

More significantly, Atty. Sevandal filed his entry of appearance, objected to Atty. Adame's representation, and sought attorney's fees despite knowing that Merlina had revoked the Retainer Contract and had chosen Atty. Adame as her counsel. Citing Linsangan v. Atty. Tolentino, the Court emphasized that a lawyer "should not steal another lawyer's client nor induce the latter to retain him by a promise of better service, good result or reduced fees."

The Meaning of Encroachment

Rule 8.02, Canon 8 of the CPR states: "A lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly, encroach upon the professional employment of another lawyer, however, it is the right of any lawyer, without fear or favor, to give proper advice and assistance to those seeking relief against unfaithful or neglectful counsel."

The exception is narrow: a lawyer may step in only where the existing counsel is unfaithful or neglectful. Mere disagreement with another lawyer's strategy, or a belief that one could achieve better results, does not justify intervention. The client's choice of counsel must be respected, and a lawyer who intrudes without authority faces serious consequences.

Practical Takeaways

• Respect the counsel of record. A lawyer should not enter a case or file appearances where another lawyer is already engaged, unless the client has clearly terminated the prior counsel and a new engagement is properly documented.
• Document the scope of representation carefully. Contracts should clearly state what matters are covered. Ambiguity invites conflict—and, as this case shows, a contract limited to one forum will not support appearances in another.
• Verify the client's intentions. When a client appears to have engaged multiple lawyers, confirm in writing which counsel the client actually wants. A client's revocation of a retainer, executed in proper form, ends the lawyer's authority.
• Never demand fees for services not rendered. Collecting attorney's fees without authority, or for work never performed, exposes a lawyer to suspension and an order to return the amounts received.
• The penalty is real. Violating Rule 8.02 can result in suspension from practice, return of fees, and a warning that repetition will be dealt with more severely.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.