Gamilla vs. atty. Marino Facts: Atty.

Marino was the president od the ust faculty union , when their 1986 cba expired, they tried to have a new one but failed which resulted to a stri e. As a result the ust ter!inated 16 officers and directroe of the union includin" !arino. #o settle the dispute, ust and the union entered into a co!pro!ise a"ree!ent for a total of $% !illion to be "iven to faculty !e!bers as benefits and the $.%!illion to !arino as atty&s fees. 'a!illa et, al. as !e!bers of the ust faculty union (uestioned the alle"ed lac of transparency of the disburse!ent of the !onetary benefits. #hey filed % co!plaints w) the re"ional director of dole and filed a disbar!ent case a"ainst !arino for failin" to account the !oney he received and for lac of transparency in the ad!inistration of !oney w)c is in violation of canon 1*.+8. Marion replied by sayin" that the co!plainants were "uilty of foru! shoppin" for filin" % co!planits w) the bureau of labor relations and contendin" that he ade(uately accounted for the disbar!ent of the !oney in (uestion. #he disbar!ent case was referred to the ibp co!!issioner, w)c later reco!!ended the suspension of !arino. #he re"inal director found the !arino and the union officers "uilty and ordered their expulsion. ,ut the bureau of relations in appeal found that !arino and the officers have fully and ade(uately accounted the disburse!ent w)c were later affir!ed by the ca. -,. adopted the decision of ca therefore liftin" the suspension of !arino. -ssue: whether !arino violated canon 1*. /ulin": Marino violated 0anon 1* of the Code of Professional Responsibility requiring every lawyer to "observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all his dealings and transactions with his clients.1 A si!ple accountin" of the !oney that he and others concerned received fro! 23#, as well as an explanation on the details of the a"ree!ents, would have enli"htened the faculty !e!bers about the probability of conflict of interests on respondent4s part and "uided the! to loo for alternative actions to protect their own interests. As one of the sixteen 5166 union officers and directors see in" co!pensation fro! the 2niversity of 3anto #o!as for their ille"al dis!issal, respondent was involved in obvious conflict of interests when in addition he chose to act as concurrent lawyer and president of the 23# Faculty 2nion in for"in" the co!pro!ise a"ree!ent. #he test of conflict of interest a!on" lawyers is 1 whether the acceptance of a new relation will prevent an attorney from the full discharge of his duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty to his client or invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double-dealing in the performance thereof .11* -n the sa!e !anner, it is undoubtedly a conflict of interests for an attorney to put hi!self in a position where self7interest te!pts, or worse, actually i!pels hi! to do less than his best for his client. Luisa hadjula vs. atty, roceles madianda Facts: 8ad9ula and atty. Madianda were friends and both wor in" at bureau of fire protection 5,F.6 whereat the latter as chief le"al officer and the for!er as the chief nurse. 3o!eti!e in 1998, had9ula approached !adianda for so!e le"al advice wherein the for!er disclosed personal secrets and produced !arria"e contarct, birth certificate and baptis!al certificate but only to find out that !adianda would refer her to another lawyer. After so!eti!e, had9ula filed a cri!inal and disciplinary actions a"ainst !adianda for the alle"ed de!andin" of the latter of a cp for an exchan"e of the latter&s pro!otion. Madianda then filed a counter co!plaint, char"in" had9ula w) falcification of public docu!ents and i!!orality w)c were based on the disclosure !ade by had9ula to her in 1998. 8ad9ula filed a co!plaint for disbar!ent a"ainst !adianda for violation of canon 1*.+% w) the ibp co!!issioner. Madianda in her answer denied havin" "iven any le"al advice and denied the existence of lawyer7client relationship. Moreover, she cpntended that bein" a lawyer of ,F. she is prohibited to practice law. -,. reco!!ended !adrianda to be repri!anded. -ssue: whether there was a lawyer7client relationship. /ulin": :es,a lawyer7client relationship was established fro! the very first !o!ent co!plainant as ed respondent for le"al advise it is not essential that the client e!ployed the attorney professionally on any previous occasion. A lawyer7client relationship exists notwithstandin" the close personal relationship between the lawyer and the co!plainant or the non7pay!ent of the for!er4s fees. #he purpose of the rule of confidentiality is actually to protect the client fro! possible breach of confidence as a result of a consultation with a lawyer. 8e violated rule 1*.+%, a lawyer shall be bound by the rule on privile"e co!!unication in respect of !atters disclosed to hi! by a prospective client. 8e therefore /epri!anded. Toledo vs. judge kallos Facts: ;hen 9ud"e allos was still a lawyer, he was a counsel of #oledo in a civil case involvin" the recovery of hereditary shares w) da!a"es wherein they won and were "ranted the possession and ownership of a parcel of land. After so!eti!e, allos filed in the sa!e casefor the issuance of an order constitutin" in his favor an attorney&s lien to the extent of 1)< of the land awarded based on their contin"ency a"ree!ent w) #oledo. #oledo filed before the sc thru the office of the court ad!inistratoer a co!plaint for disbar!ent a"ainst allos prayin" for an order to stop allos fro! de!andin" his share bec they were only forced by the latter to si"n a deed of sale in his favor, prays to recover the property bec lawyers are prohibited to buy their client&s properties w)c are under liti"ation and prays for the re!oval of allos as a 9ud"e. =allos replied sayin" that he was 9ust clai!in" what is due to hi!, and the clai! for his fees is still under liti"ation therefore the co!plaint is pre!ature. -ssue: whether allos violated any canon. /ulin": >one, allos chose to file his clai! for attorney&s fees in the sa!e case in which he served as counsel for the co!plainants. As !entioned, this is a proper re!edy under our 9urisdiction and is preferred to an independent action as it avoids !ultiplicity of suits. ,esides, the ri"ht to recover attorney&s fees is but an incident of the case in which the services of counsel have been rendered. Moreover, the court tryin" the case is to a certain de"ree already fa!iliar with the nature and extent of the lawyer&s services and is in a better position to decide the (uestion of fees. ?awyers are thus as !uch entitled to 9udicial protection a"ainst in9ustice on the part of their clients as the clients are a"ainst abuses on the part of counsel. #he duty of the court is not only to see that lawyers act in a proper and lawful !anner, but also to see that lawyers are paid their 9ust and lawful fees. BURBE V !TT". M!GULT! Facts: Ma"ulta decided to represent ,urbe in a !oney clai! and a possible civil case for breach of contract a"ainst certain parties. Atty Ma"ulta drafted the de!and letter and other le"al docu!ents needed which ,urbe accordin"ly paid. #hey failed to secure a settle!ent but Atty Ma"ulta still su""ested to ,urbe that they file a co!plaint and the a!ount of the filin" fee needed was %*,+++. ,urbe deposited the a!ount to Atty Ma"ulta and was infor!ed by the attorney that the co!plaint was already filed in court. Months passed and still there was no notice fro! the court about the pro"ress of the co!plaint. ,urbe was advised by Atty

Ma"ulta to 9ust wait. ,urbe, feelin" restless, went personally to the court to as about the co!plaint&s pro"ress and he found out that there was no record at all of a case filed by Atty Ma"ulta in ,urbe&s behalf. #hus, this proceedin" a"ainst the attorney. Atty Ma"ulta&s defense: All the le"al docu!ents includin" the de!and letter were services that ,urbe never paid. ;hen ,urbe deposited the %*,+++, he said that it was for the filin" fee but Atty Ma"ulta said that he needed to pay for the acceptance fee first before the filin" fee.,urbe a"reed, then that the %*,+++ were for lawyer&s fees, not for the filin" of the co!plaint. /ulin": -,.: Atty Ma"ulta is to be suspended for one year. -t is clear that the %*,+++ was for the filin" of the co!plaint and with the deposit, an obli"ation was created on the part of the attorney to file the co!plaint within the ti!e fra!e. #he failure of respondent to fulfill this obli"ation due to his !isuse of the filin" fees deposited by co!plainant, and his atte!pts to cover up this !isuse of funds of the client, which caused co!plainant additional da!a"e and pre9udice, constitutes hi"hly dishonest conduct on his part, unbeco!in" a !e!ber of the law profession. #he subse(uent rei!burse!ent by the respondent of part of the !oney deposited by co!plainant for filin" fees, does not exculpate the respondent for his !isappropriation of said funds. 0ourt&s rulin": A'/@@ ;-#8 #8@ -,.. Atty. Ma"ulta violated 0A>A>3 16.1 A>B 18.< of the 0./. C-A?A#@B 16.+1 5in what way6: Atty Ma"ulta violated this canon because lawyerin" is not a business7it is a profession. -n failin" to apply to the filin" fee the a!ount "iven by co!plainant 77 as evidenced by the receipt issued by the law office of respondent 77 the latter also violated the rule that lawyers !ust be scrupulously careful in handlin" !oney entrusted to the! in their professional capacity. /ule 16.+1 of the 0ode of .rofessional /esponsibility states that lawyers shall hold in trust all !oneys of their clients and properties that !ay co!e into their possession.?awyers who convert the funds entrusted to the! are in "ross violation of professional ethics and are "uilty of betrayal of public confidence in the le"al profession.-t !ay be true that they have a lien upon the client&s funds, docu!ents and other papers that have lawfully co!e into their possessionD that they !ay retain the! until their lawful fees and disburse!ents have been paidD and that they !ay apply such funds to the satisfaction of such fees and disburse!ents. 8owever, these considerations do not relieve the! of their duty to pro!ptly account for the !oneys they received. #heir failure to do so constitutes professional !isconduct.-n any event, they !ust still exert all effort to protect their client&s interest within the bounds of law. C-A?A#-A> AF 0A>A> 18.< /ule 18.+< of the 0ode of .rofessional /esponsibility provides that lawyers should not ne"lect le"al !atters entrusted to the!. ?awyers !ust exert their best efforts and ability in the prosecution or the defense of the client&s cause. #hey who perfor! that duty with dili"ence and candor not only protect the interests of the client, but also serve the ends of 9ustice. /espondent wants this 0ourt to believe that no lawyer7client relationship existed between hi! and co!plainant, because the latter never paid hi! for services rendered. #he for!er adds that he only drafted the said docu!ents as a personal favor for the kumpadre of one of his partners.;e disa"ree. A lawyer7client relationship was established fro! the very first !o!ent co!plainant as ed respondent for le"al advice re"ardin" the for!er&s business. #o constitute professional e!ploy!ent, it is not essential that the client e!ployed the attorney professionally on any previous occasion. -t is not necessary that any retainer be paid, pro!ised, or char"edD neither is it !aterial that the attorney consulted did not afterward handle the case for which his service had been sou"ht.

5-n case 3ir as s why he was not disbarred,,5because he was only suspended..#he reason is that the power to disbar !ust be exercised with "reat caution. Anly in a clear case of !isconduct that seriously affects the standin" and the character of the bar will disbar!ent be i!posed as a penalty.6Eflorence)))

#$B V !TT" %E&' Facts: .>, is char"in" Atty 0edo for violatin" the 0anon 6.+< where it says7A lawyer shall not, after leavin" "overn!ent service, accept en"a"e!ent or e!ploy!ent in connection with any !atter in which he had intervened while in said service. Atty 0edo, when he was still in the e!ploy of the .>,, appeared as counsels for individuals who had transactions with the .>,. #o na!e so!e of the transactions, he helped Ms. 3iy in arran"in" the sale of steel sheets but later on when there was a co!plaint filed by Ms 3iy a"ainst the ban , Atty 0edo5 who was not any!ore an e!ployee of the .>,6 represented Ms. 3iy.Another case where he interevened in was the handlin" of loan accounts of the 3pouses Al!eda by writin" to the! de!and letters. #his is the present case in (uestion because the 3pouses Al!eda filed a civil case a"ainst the ban and chose the law fir! of 0@BA, F@//@/, MA:>-'A and A33A0-A#@3. Atty 0@BA&s contention: -> /@3.@0# #A #8@ 3-: 0A3@ ;8-08 8@ ->#@/@C@>@B: 8e ad!itted that he appeared as counsel for Mrs. An" 3iy but only with respect to the execution pendin" appeal of the /#0 decision. 8e alle"ed that he did not participate in the liti"ation of the case before the trial court. -> /@3.@0# #A #8@ A?M@BA 0A3@: 8e never appeared as counsel for the Al!edas. 8e contended that while the law fir! 10edo Ferrer, Mayni"o F Associates1 is desi"nated as counsel of record, the case is actually handled only by Atty. .edro Ferrer. /espondent averred that he did not enter into a "eneral partnership with Atty. .edro Ferrer nor with the other lawyers na!ed therein. #hey are only usin" the aforesaid na!e to desi"nate a law fir! !aintained by lawyers, who althou"h not partners, !aintain one office as well as one clerical and supportin" staff. @ach one of the! handles their own cases independently and individually receives the revenues therefro! which are not shared a!on" the!. -,. /2?->': #he -,. reco!!ended the suspension of respondent fro! the practice of law for < years.#he -,. further found that the char"es herein a"ainst respondent were fully substantiated. /espondent4s aver!ent that the law fir! handlin" the case of the Al!eda spouses is not a partnership deserves scant consideration in the li"ht of the attestation of co!plainant4s counsel, Atty. .edro 3in"son, that in one of the hearin"s of the Al!eda spouses4 case, respondent attended the sa!e with his partner Atty. Ferrer, and althou"h he did not enter his appearance, he was practically dictatin" to Atty. Ferrer what to say and ar"ue before the court. Further!ore, durin" the hearin" of the application for a writ of in9unction in the sa!e case, respondent i!pliedly ad!itted bein" the partner of Atty. Ferrer, when it was !ade of record that respondent was wor in" in the sa!e office as Atty. Ferrer. Moreover, the -,. noted that assu!in" the alle"ed set7up of the fir! is true, it is in itself a violation of the 0ode of .rofessional /esponsibility 5/ule 1*.+%6 since the client&s secrets and confidential records and infor!ation are exposed to the other lawyers and staff !e!bers at all ti!es. Fro! the fore"oin", the -,. found a deliberate intent on the part of respondent to devise ways and !eans to attract as clients for!er borrowers of co!plainant ban since he was in the best position to see the le"al wea nesses of his for!er e!ployer, a convincin" factor for the said clients to see his professional service. -n su!, the -,. saw a deliberate sacrifice by respondent of his ethics in consideration of the !oney he expected to earn.

))Florence)) .

!.%. $o. ()*+

March ,(, ,**-

GL'R.T' V. M!TUR!$, /etitioner, vs. !TT". %'$R!&' . G'$0!LE , res/ondent. 1!%T 2 3ps. 0as(ue9o instituted their son7in7law, 'lorito Maturan as their attorney7in7fact, throu"h a 3pecial .ower of Attorney, authoriGin" hi! to file e9ect!ent cases and cri!inal cases a"ainst s(uatters occupyin" their lot in 'eneral 3antos. Atty. 'onGales, prepared and notariGed said 3.A. Maturan then en"a"ed his services in e9ectin" the s(uatters. ;hile said lot was re"istered in the na!e of :o in"co, 0as(ue9o had instituted a case for reconveyance of property and declaration of nullity a"ainst the for!er. As a conse(uence of his en"a"e!ent by Maturan, Atty. '. filed a case for Forcible @ntry and Ba!a"es a"ainst several individuals. #he 9ud"!ent favored Maturan who, thru Atty. '., filed a !otion for issuance of a writ of execution. -n the interi!, the parties to the reconveyance case entered into a co!pro!ise a"ree!ent, which was 9udicially approved. ;hile the !otion for issuance of the writ was pendin", and without withdrawin" as counsel for Maturan, Atty. '. filed, on behalf of :o in"co, et al., an action to annul the 9ud"!ent rendered in the reconveyance case base on lac of authority on the part of Maturan to represent 3ps. 0as(ue9oD and a special civil case for in9unction with da!a"es a"ainst Maturan. A""rieved by Atty. '4s acceptance of professional e!ploy!ent fro! their adversary and alle"in" that privile"ed !atters relatin" to the land had been trans!itted by hi! to Atty. '. in the forcible entry case, Maturan filed an ad!inistrative co!plaint a"ainst the Atty. '. for i!!oral, unethical, and ano!alous acts and as ed for his disbar!ent. Atty ! declared that he was of the belief that filing a motion for issuance of a writ of e"ecution was the last and final act in the lawyer-client relationship bet himself and #aturan, and that his formal withdrawal as counsel for the Casque$os was unnecessary in order to sever the lawyer-client relationship between them% and that his acceptance of employment from &okingco was an opportunity to honestly earn a little more for his children's sustenance #he investi"atin" co!!issioner of the -,. found Atty. '. "uilty of representin" conflictin" interests and reco!!ended that he be suspended for < years. #he ,oard of 'overnors adopted and approved this report but reco!!ended that the suspension be reduced to 1 year. 3EL&2 Atty. 'onGales is "uilty of representin" conflictin" interests. -t is i!proper for a lawyer to appear as counsel for one party a"ainst the adverse party who is his client in a related suit. 8e !ay not, without bein" "uilty of professional !isconduct, act as counsel for a person whose interest conflicts with that of his present or for!er client. #hat the representation of conflictin" interest is in "ood faith and with honest intention on the part of the lawyer does not !a e the prohibition inoperative. #he reason for the prohibition is found in the relation of attorney and client, which is one of trust and confidence of the hi"hest de"ree. A lawyer beco!es fa!iliar with all the facts connected with his client4s case. 8e learns fro! his client the wea points of the action as well as the stron" ones. 3uch nowled"e !ust be considered sacred and "uarded with care. >o opportunity !ust be "iven hi! to ta e advanta"e of the client4s secrets. A lawyer !ust have the fullest confidence of his client. For if the confidence is abused, the profession will suffer by the loss thereof. %!$'$ V.'L!TE&2 %anon ,), Rule ,).45 (t is unprofessional to represent conflicting interests, e"cept by e"press consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts ;ithin the !eanin" of this canon, a lawyer represents conflictin" interests when, in behalf of one client, it is his duty to contend for that which duty to another client re(uires hi! to oppose. Atty. '.4s 9ustification for his actions reveals a patent i"norance of the fiduciary obli"ations which a lawyer owes to his client. A lawyer7client relationship is not ter!inated by the filin" of a !otion for a writ of execution. 8is acceptance of a case i!plies that he will prosecute the case to its conclusion. 8e !ay not be per!itted to unilaterally ter!inate the sa!e to the pre9udice of his client. As to the reco!!endation that the ter! of suspension be reduced fro! three years to one year, we find the sa!e to be unwarranted. -n si!ilar cases decided by the 3upre!e 0ourt, the penalty of two or three years suspension has been i!posed where respondent was found "uilty of representin" conflictin" interests. #his 0ourt resolves to MAB-F: the -,. reco!!endation to suspend Atty. ' for one year and !odifies it to 323.@>3-A> fro! the practice of law for % :@A/3

!.%. $o. 6567

!/ril 5, (44(

ERL.$&! !BR!G!$ et al. vs !TT". M!8.M' G. R'&R.GUE0 1!%T 2 Abra"an et al. hired the services of Atty. /odri"ueG to represent the! in a forcible entry case before the M#00. After winnin" and obtainin" a writ of execution, Atty. /. continued representin" the!. 8owever, they decided to sever their client7 lawyer relationship when Atty. /. was found sellin" surreptitiously so!e property ri"hts 5land6 to other persons without their consent. ?ater, Abra"an et al. en"a"ed the services of Atty. 3alva 5Atty. /.&s for!er student6 and filed an indirect conte!pt char"e a"ainst 3heriff ?oncion et al. who, to their surprise, were represented by Atty. /. 8owever, since Atty. 3alva was a for!er student of Atty. /., said counsel, incited by the su""estions of Atty. /., withdrew the case without Abra"an et al.&s consent. -t was also shown that Atty /. even represented Abra"an, in a later proceedin" wherein the apportion!ent of parcels of land was erroneously, unprocedurally and ille"ally sub!itted to a co!!issioner, and that Abra"an, after winnin" was later on dispossessed of her ri"hts by Atty. /.4s !aneuver. Atty. /. then fenced an area within one of the sub9ect lots without the consent of Abra"an et al. 8e proclai!ed his possession and ownership thereof alle"in" that it had been "iven to hi! as attorney4s fees. #he 0ourt referred the case to the -,. for investi"ation. Re/ort o9 the .nvestigating %ommissioner2 Atty. /. to be suspended fro! the practice of law for 6 !onths for violation of 0anon 1*, /ule 1*.+< of the 0./ )rom the facts obtaining, it is apparent that he represented conflicting interest considering that the complainants were the same plaintiffs in both cases and were duly specified in the pleadings .B# Board o9 Governors: Resolution2 Atty. /. to be suspended fro! the practice of law for % !onths for violation of 0anon 1*, /ule 1*.+< of the 0./ . UE2 ;hether Atty. /odri"ueG has adhered to proper professional standard.

3EL&2 ;e a"ree with the findin"s and reco!!endation of the -,. ,oard of 'overnors, but hold that the penalty should be 67!onth suspension as reco!!ended by the investi"atin" co!!issioner. Abra"an et al. did not proffer any proof tendin" to show that Atty. /. had sold to other persons several ri"hts over the land in (uestionD and that he had induced Atty. 3alva to withdraw the indirect conte!pt case. >either did the -,. find anythin" wron" as re"ards the 8,+++ s(. !eters awarded to Atty. /. as pay!ent for his le"al services. .etitioners4 bare assertions, without any proof to bac the! up, would not 9ustify the i!position of a penalty on Atty. /. ;e find, however, that Atty. /. falls short of the inte"rity and "ood !oral character re(uired fro! all lawyers. #hey are expected to uphold the di"nity of the le"al profession at all ti!es. #he trust and confidence clients repose in the! re(uire a hi"h standard and appreciation of the latter4s duty to the for!er, the le"al profession, the courts and the public. -ndeed, the bar !ust !aintain a hi"h standard of le"al proficiency as well as of honesty and fair dealin"s. *o this end, lawyers should refrain from doing anything that might tend to lessen the confidence of the public in the fidelity, honesty and integrity of their profession %!$'$ V.'L!TE&2 /ule 1*.+< of 0anon 1* ;! la<yer shall not re/resent con9licting interests e=ce/t >y <ritten consent o9 all concerned given a9ter 9ull disclosure o9 the 9acts.; #he 0ourt explained in ,uted v. 8ernando: 1HAI lawyer represents conflictin" interests when, in behalf of one client, it is his duty to contend for that which duty to another client re(uires hi! to oppose. 1#he obli"ation to represent the client with undivided fidelity and not to divul"e his secrets or confidence forbids also the subse(uent acceptance of retainers or e!ploy!ent fro! others in !atters adversely affectin" any interest of the client with respect to which confidence has been reposed.1 -n the case at bar, petitioners were the sa!e co!plainants in the indirect conte!pt case and in the 0o!plaint for forcible entry. Atty. /. should have evaluated the situation first before a"reein" to be counsel for the defendants in the indirect conte!pt proceedin"s. Attorneys owe undivided allegiance to their clients, and should at all times weigh their actions, especially in their dealings with the latter and the public at large *hey must conduct themselves beyond reproach at all times #his stern rule is desi"ned not alone to prevent the dishonest practitioner fro! fraudulent conduct, but as well as to protect the honest lawyer fro! unfounded suspicion of unprofessional practice. -t is founded on principles of public policy, on "ood taste. #his is not only to eep inviolate the client4s confidence, but also to avoid the appearance of treachery and double7dealin". Anly thus can liti"ants be encoura"ed to entrust their secrets to their attorneys which is of para!ount i!portance in the ad!inistration of 9ustice. ,ecause of his divided alle"iance, Atty. /. has eroded, rather than enhanced, the public perception of the le"al profession. 8is divided loyalty constitutes !alpractice for which he !ay be suspended. 7'2-?#: of violatin" /ule 1*.+<: 323.@>B@B for 6 !onths fro! the practice of lawD and warned that a repetition of the sa!e or si!ilar acts will be dealt with !ore severely.

J9 .A?@ ?olita ArteGuela vs Atty /icarte ,. MaderaGo Facts: @chavia ra!!ed his car into a s!all carinderia owned by ArteGuela at Mandaue 0ity. #he destruction of the carinderia caused cessation of such business, resultin" to financial constraint. ArteGuela en"a"ed the services of MaderaGo 51+ atty&s fee6. ?ater on she filed for da!a"es a"ainst @chavia. #he case was later on dis!issed. ArteGuela filed for disbar!ent a"ainst MaderaGo. ArteGuela alled"es that MaderaGo ne"lected his duties as a lawyer and failed to represent her case with Geal and enthusias!. 3he further clai!s MaderaGo en"a"ed in activities ini!ical to her interests by preparin" @chavia&s answer to the a!ended co!plaint. #he docu!ent was also printed in MaderaGo&s office. MaderaGo also withdrew as counsel without consent. MaderaGo denies ne"lectin" his duty and his withdrawal without consent, but ad!its that @chavia&s answer was printed in his office. 8e clai!s that ArteGuela re(uested hi! to prepare @chavia&s answer but he declined. @chavia, however, went bac to his office and as ed MaderaGo&s secretary to print the docu!ent. MaderaGo inti!ated that ArteGuela and @chavia have fabricated the accusations a"ainst hi! to co!pel hi! to pay .*++ . 0o!!isioner -n"les of -,. found MaderaGo "uilty of violation of 0anon 6 and 1* 51*.+<6 and reco!!ends suspension for 1 year. ,oard of 'overnors of the -,. upheld -n"les but !odified the penalty to 6 !onths. -ssue: ;hether there is indeed a violation of 0anon 6 and 1*.+<K /ulin": :upL 0anon 6 M records show that MaderaGo repeatedly sou"ht postpone!ent of hearin"s. -t is by his own ne"li"ence that MaderaGo was dee!ed to have waived his ri"ht to cross exa!ine ArteGuela and her witness. 0anon 1*.+< M MadearGo had a direct hand in the preparation of @chavia&s Answer to the a!!eded co!plaint. @chavia&s testi!ony is credible. @chavia states that he was approached by MaderaGo , introduced hi!self as his lawyer and after so!e !eetin"s re(uired @chavia to si"n an answer to the a!ended co!plaint. MaderaGo&s defense that the answer was created by ArteGuela is without !erit. ArteGuela&s lac of le"al nowled"e could not possibly create the answer. Also if she indeed created the answer then why would the answer be a"ainst her interest and in favor of the other partyK An attorney owes his client undivided alle"iance. ,ecause of the hi"hly fiduciary nature of the attorney7client relationship, sound public policy dictates that a lawyer be prohibited fro! representin" conflictin" interests or dischar"in" inconsistent duties.