INQUIRER FILE PHOTO
MANILA, Philippines 鈥� The Supreme Court has reversed its ruling involving Atty. Jun Maxell Orlina, who was suspended for violating the lawyer鈥檚 oath.
The case stemmed from the complaint filed by Roy and Emily Yanson, who accused Orlina of participating in a supposedly illegal special stockholders鈥� meeting of Vallacar Transit Inc. (VTI) on August 19, 2019. It was conducted by their brother Leo Yanson, with whom they have been at odds for control of VTI.
READ: Coup at PH鈥檚 biggest bus firm sealed in stockholders鈥� meet
The Yansons alleged that Orlina participated in the stockholders鈥� meeting despite having the knowledge that it was being held without the required quorum to conduct business, which violated the Revised Corporation Code of the Philippines (RCC) and the By-Laws of VTI.
The SC said quorum is defined as the 鈥渕ajority in the number of shares of subscribed capital stock issued, outstanding and entitled, to vote shall be sufficient to constitute a quorum for the election of Directors or for the transaction of any business of the Corporation, excepting in those cases where, under the Corporation Law, a greater number is required.鈥�
Due to this, Orlina was found administratively liable by the SC for violating the lawyer鈥檚 oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA) in August 2023.
Orlina filed a motion to reopen the case, and the SC ruled that there was no substantial evidence proving that the stockholder鈥檚 meeting was conducted without a quorum.
鈥淚f at all, the evidence on record shows that there is a difference in the number of shares claimed to be owned by[ the] complainants鈥� group and that claimed by Leo鈥檚 group. These issues are yet to be settled in the cases pending among them,鈥� the SC鈥檚 resolution dated January 27, 2025, reads.
鈥淕iven such uncertainty, it cannot be concluded that Atty. Orlina engaged in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct, or any violation of the CPRA,鈥� it adds.
According to the SC, attorneys enjoy the legal presumption of innocence until the contrary is proved.
鈥淲hile the Court will not hesitate to mete out disciplinary punishment on lawyers who are shown to have failed to perform their sworn duties, it will also not be reluctant in extending its protective arm when the accusations against them are not supported with substantial evidence,鈥� the SC said.
鈥淎ccordingly, the Court鈥檚 assailed Resolution dated August 9, 2023, must be set aside and the Complaint against Atty. Orlina must be dismissed,鈥� it added.