Atty. Nuique vs. Atty. Sedillo/ A.C. No. 9906/ REYES, J.

Summarized by John Albert R. Amparo

Important People
Kiyoshi- Japanese national
Estrelieta- wife of Kiyoshi
Manuel- brother of Estrelieta
Atty. Nuique- Complainant
Atty. Sedillo- Respondent
Facts:
1. 1992- Respondent became the lawyer of Kiyoshi and his wife in case for
recovery of overpayment against Amasula. Trial court ruled favorably but the
case was still on appeal when the present complaint was filed. He remained
their counsel until July 2007 when Kiyoshi terminated his services.
2. September 2006- Kiyoshi and his wife had a falling out. His wife and her
brother had apparently falsified Kiyoshis signature to make it appear that he
loaned Php. 1.5 M from the DBP and even secured it by a mortgage on a
parcel of land he owned.
3. November 2006- Kiyoshi engaged the services of the complainant while
respondent appeared as counsel for his wife and her brother in the
falsification case.
4. Respondent continued to appear as counsel for the wife in several cases
against Kiyoshi.
Issue:
Whether not he violated Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the CPR
Holding:
1. Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides
that: A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written
consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of facts.
2. To determine compliance, one test is the inconsistency of interest: Whether
the acceptance of a new relation would prevent the full discharge of the
lawyers duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty to the client or invite suspicion
of unfaithfulness or double-dealing in the performance of that duty.
(Quiambao vs. Atty. Bamba)
3. The respondents representation of Estrelieta and Manuel against Kiyoshi,
notwithstanding that he was still the counsel of Kiyoshi and Estrelieta in the
case against Amasula, creates a suspicion of unfaithfulness or double-dealing

in the performance of his duty towards his clients. Under the circumstances,
the decent and ethical thing which the respondent should have done was to
advise Estrelieta and Manuel to engage the services of another lawyer.
4. Lawyers are bound not only to preserve the clients confidence but also to
avoid all appearances of treachery and double-dealing.
5. It is immaterial that the cases in which he represented the opposing
parties are unrelated to each other. It at the very least invites suspicion of
double-dealing which the Court cannot allow.
6. Desistance of the complainant does not prevent the Court from imposing
administrative sanction since it involves public interest- to protect the court
and the public against an attorney guilty of unworthy practices in his
profession.
Dispositive:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Court finds Atty. Eduardo Sedillo
GUILTY of misconduct for representing conflicting interests in violation of Rule
15.03, Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and is
SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months,
effective upon receipt of this Resolution, with a STERN WARNING that a
commission of the same or similar offense in the future will result in the
imposition of a more severe penalty.
Let a copy of this Resolution be entered into the records of Atty. Eduardo
Sedillo and furnished to the Office of the Clerk of Court, the Office of the Bar
Confidant, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and all courts in the
Philippines, for their information and guidance.
Atty. Eduardo Sedillo is DIRECTED to inform the Court of the date of his
receipt of this Resolution so that the Court can determine the reckoning point
when his suspension shall take effect.
SO ORDERED.