Rochelle P. Lacsina 3-B Clarita J. Samala vs. Atty. Luciano D. Valencia A.C. No. 5 3!

" January ##$ #%%& Austria-'artine($ J. Facts: Clarita J. Samala (complainant) filed a complaint against Atty. Luciano D. Valencia (respondent) for Disbarment on the following grounds (a) ser!ing on two separate occasions as counsel for contending parties" (b) #nowingly misleading the court by submitting false documentary e!idence" (c) initiating numerous cases in e$change for non%payment of rental fees" and (d) ha!ing a reputation of being immoral by siring illegitimate children. After respondent filed his Comment& the Court referred the case to the '() for in!estigation& report& and recommendation. After a series of hearings& the parties filed their respecti!e memoranda and the case was deemed submitted for resolution. *he Commissioner found respondent guilty of !iolating Canons +, and -+ of the Code of )rofessional .esponsibility and recommended the penalty of suspension for si$ months. *he '() (oard of /o!ernors adopted and appro!ed the report and recommendation of Commissioner .eyes but increased the penalty of suspension from si$ months to one year. Issue: 0hether or not the respondent !iolated Canons +, and -+ of the Code of )rofessional .esponsibility. Held: *his Court adopts the report of the '() (oard of /o!ernors e$cept as to the issue on immorality and as to the recommended penalty. )a* +n servin, as counsel -or conten.in, /arties. .espondent& while being the counsel for defendant Valde1& also acted as counsel for the tenants Lagmay& Valencia& (ustamante and (ayuga by filing an 2$planation and Compliance before the .*C. *he )residing Judge warned respondent to refrain from repeating the act of being counsel of record of both parties in Ci!il Case 3o. 4,%+5,%67.

.ule +,.58& Canon +, of the Code of )rofessional .esponsibility pro!ides that a lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests e$cept by written consent of all concerned gi!en after a full disclosure of the facts. A lawyer may not& without being guilty of professional misconduct& act as counsel for a person whose interest conflicts with that of his present or former client. 9e may not also underta#e to discharge conflicting duties any more than he may represent antagonistic interests. *his stern rule is founded on the principles of public policy and good taste. 't springs from the relation of attorney and client which is one of trust and confidence. Lawyers are e$pected not only to #eep in!iolate the client:s confidence& but also to a!oid the appearance of treachery and double%dealing for only then can litigants be encouraged to entrust their secrets to their lawyers& which is of paramount importance in the administration of ;ustice. <ne of the tests of inconsistency of interests is whether the acceptance of a new relation would pre!ent the full discharge of the lawyer:s duty of undi!ided fidelity and loyalty to the client or in!ite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double%dealing in the performance of that duty. )0* +n 1no2in,ly mislea.in, the court 0y su0mittin, -alse .ocumentary evi.ence. Complainant alleges that in Ci!il Case 3o. 55%=+8= filed before 6*C& (ranch =, for e;ectment& respondent submitted *C* 3o. -=85-5 as e!idence of Valde1:s ownership despite the fact that a new *C* 3o. -=,,55 was already issued in the name of Alba on >ebruary -& +44,. During the hearing before Commissioner .a!al& respondent a!ers that when the Answer was filed in the said case& that was the time that he came to #now that the title was already in the name of Alba" so that when the court dismissed the complaint& he did not do anything anymore. .espondent further a!ers that Valde1 did not tell him the truth and things were re!ealed to him only when the case for rescission was filed in -55-. .espondent failed to comply with Canon +5 of the Code of )rofessional .esponsibility which pro!ides that 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 mislead by any artifice. 't matters not that the trial court was not misled by respondent:s submission of *C* 3o. -=85-5 in the name of Valde1& as shown by its decision dated January ?& -55- dismissing the complaint for e;ectment. 0hat is decisi!e in this case is respondent:s intent in trying to mislead the court by presenting *C* 3o. -=85-5 despite the fact that said title was already cancelled and a new one& *C* 3o. -=,,55& was already issued in the name of Alba. )c* +n initiatin, numerous cases in e3chan,e -or non/ayment orental -ees. Complainant alleged that respondent filed the following cases (a) Ci!il Case 3o. -555%@,=%67 at the .*C& (ranch -=-" (b) Ci!il Case 3o. 55%=+8= at the 6*C& (ranch =," and (c) '.S. 3os. 55%AA84 and 5+%58@+@- both entitled BValencia !. SamalaB for estafa and gra!e coercion& respecti!ely&

before the 6ari#ina City )rosecutor. Complainant claims that the two criminal cases were filed in retaliation for the cases she filed against Lagmay doc#eted as '.S. 3o. 55%A85@ for estafa and '.S. 3o. 55%A8+? against Al!in Valencia (son of respondent) for trespass to dwelling. As culled from the records& Valde1 entered into a retainer agreement with respondent. As payment for his ser!ices& he was allowed to occupy the property for free and utili1e the same as his office pursuant to their retainer agreement. *he Court finds the charge to be without sufficient basis. *he act of respondent of filing the aforecited cases to protect the interest of his client& on one hand& and his own interest& on the other& cannot be made the basis of an administrati!e charge unless it can be clearly shown that the same was being done to abuse ;udicial processes to commit in;ustice. *he filing of an administrati!e case against respondent for protecting the interest of his client and his own right would be putting a burden on a practicing lawyer who is obligated to defend and prosecute the right of his client. ).* +n havin, a re/utation -or 0ein, immoral 0y sirin, ille,itimate chil.ren. *he Court finds respondent liable for being immoral by siring illegitimate children. During the hearing& respondent admitted that he sired three children by *eresita Lagmay who are all o!er -5 years of age& while his first wife was still ali!e. 9e also admitted that he has eight children by his first wife& the youngest of whom is o!er -5 years of age& and after his wife died in +44=& he married Lagmay in +44?. .espondent further admitted that Lagmay was staying in one of the apartments being claimed by complainant. 9owe!er& he does not consider his affair with Lagmay as a relationship and does not consider the latter as his second family. 9e reasoned that he was not staying with Lagmay because he has two houses& one in 6untinlupa and another in 6ari#ina. Cnder Canon +& .ule +.5+ of the Code of )rofessional .esponsibility& a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful& dishonest& immoral or deceitful conduct. 't may be difficult to specify the degree of moral delinDuency that may Dualify an act as immoral& yet& for purposes of disciplining a lawyer& immoral conduct has been defined as that Bconduct which is willful& flagrant& or shameless& and which shows a moral indifference to the opinion of respectable members of the community. ACC<.D'3/LE& the Court finds respondent Atty. Luciano D. Valencia 456L78 of misconduct and !iolation of Canons -+& +5 and + of the Code of )rofessional .esponsibility. 9e is S5SP9ND9D from the practice of law for three (8) years& effecti!e immediately upon receipt of herein .esolution.