• GILBERT P. BAYORAN
The Supreme Court has suspended Atty. Jun Maxell Orlina from the practice of law for one year, after he was found guilty for violating the lawyer’s oath, also in adoption of the recommendation of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines – Board of Governors.
In addition, Orlina was sternly warned by the Supreme Court First Division, in its 10 page decision dated August 9, 2023, that a repetition of a violation will be dealt with more severely.
Complainants Roy and Emily Yanson sought the disbarment of Orlina from the practice of law for allegedly committing violations of the lawyer’s oath, the Code of Professional Responsibility, and the Code of Professional Ethics.
A statement issued yesterday by Atty. CJ Narvasa, counsel of Roy and Emily Yanson, said that Orlina falsely certified that there was quorum in the Special Stockholders’ Meeting conducted by the group of Leo Rey Yanson, Ginnette Yanson Dumancas, and their mother Olivia Yanson for Vallacar Transit, Inc. on August 19, 2019, “despite knowing that it was being conducted in violation of the Revised Corporation Code and the By-laws of VTI.”
On Nov. 12, 2022, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines-Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) issued a Resolution suspending Atty. Orlina for one year from the practice of law and his notarial services, finding that he “purposely made false statements regarding the shareholdings of Vallacar Transit, Inc. or VTI, a domestic transportation company and falsely certified to the existence of a quorum in a Special Stockholders Meeting of VTI conducted by his clients,” the statement added.
It further said that the IBP also stated in its resolution that documents show that Roy Yanson (RSY), Emily Yanson, Ma. Lourdes Celina Yanson-Lopez, and Ricardo V. Yanson, Jr. “collectively own the majority shares of stocks in VTI equivalent to 61.167% of its outstanding capital stock” and that “the Special Board Meeting on July 7, 2019 wherein the Board of Directors of VTI removed respondent’s client, Leo Rey Yanson (LRY) as VTI President for loss of trust and confidence and the designation of RSY as President of the company is a valid exercise of corporate powers as the Board present constitutes quorum, as reflected in the General Information Sheet of VTI.”
The IBP-CBD also found that ‘the Special Stockholders’ meeting called by LRY, despite his removal as VTI President on August 19, 2019 has no effect. Despite the denial of the TRO and with no court order, LRY called for and issued a Notice of Special Stockholders Meeting to Elect New Board of Directors and Officers purportedly as VTI President,” the statement further disclosed.
The IBP ruled that “in that so-called Special Stockholders’ meeting sanctioned by respondent, Atty. Orlina was named ‘acting Corporate Secretary’ by the remaining 38.832% minority shareholders of VTI. That meeting did not meet the required quorum under Section 51 of the Revised Corporation Code (RCC) to conduct business,” the statement issued by Atty. Narvasa also said.
The Supreme Court adopted these findings, report, and recommendation of the IBP-CBD, and found Atty. Orlina guilty of violating the lawyer’s oath, Section 1, Canon II and Section 2, Canon III of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA), the statement further said.
The Court also did not give credence to the arguments of Atty. Orlina and ruled that he “participated in the 19 August 2019 Special Stockholders’ meeting and was designated as Acting Corporate Secretary therein despite knowing that it was being conducted in violation of the RCC and the By-Laws of VTI.”
The Supreme Court also stated in its Resolution that “to make matters worse, Atty. Orlina participated in a press conference held immediately after the said meeting, to publish the results of the election of the new set of BOD.”
The SC, in the same decision, said that it is evident that Atty. Orlina “violated the lawyer’s oath, and failed to exhibit proper conduct in accordance with Section 1, Canon II of the CPRA. Similarly, he fell short of his duty to be a responsible and accountable lawyer in accordance with Section 2, Canon III of the CPRA, the statement said.
All told, his participation in the illegal acts amounts to gross misconduct, Narvasa further said.
The DAILY STAR attempted to contact Atty. Orlina for comment but was unable to do so as of press time.*
