Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Atty. Bayot claimed that he is not the counsel of record Rule 16.01 – A lawyer shall account for all money or
of the complainant in the case before the property collected or received for or from the client.
RTC.1âwphi1 He pointed out that he had no part in the
Rule 16.02 – A lawyer shall keep the funds of each client
retainer agreement entered into by the complainant
separate and apart from his own and those of others
and Atty. Espejo. Thus, Atty. Bayot claimed, the
kept by him.
complainant had no cause of action against him.
xxxx
The Court does not agree.
CANON 18 – A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH
It is undisputed that Atty. Espejo was the counsel of
COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE. x x x x
record in the case that was filed in the RTC. Equally
undisputed is the fact that it was only Atty. Espejo who Rule 18.03 – A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter
signed the retainer agreement. However, the evidence entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection
on record, including Atty. Bayot’s admissions, points to therewith shall render him liable.
the conclusion that a lawyer-client relationship existed
Rule 18.04 – A lawyer shall keep the client informed of
between him and the complainant.
the status of his case and shall respond within a
Atty. Bayot was the one who prepared the complaint reasonable time to the client’s request for information.
that was filed with the RTC. He was likewise the one
Accordingly, Atty. Bayot owes fidelity to the cause of
who prepared the motion to serve summons through
the complainant and is obliged to keep the latter
publication. He likewise appeared as counsel for the
informed of the status of his case. He is likewise bound
complainant in the hearings of the case before the RTC.
to account for all money or property collected or
He likewise advised the complainant on the status of
received from the complainant. He may be held
the case.
administratively liable for any inaptitude or negligence
More importantly, Atty. Bayot admitted that he he may have had committed in his dealing with the
received ₱8,000.00, which is part of the acceptance fee complainant.
indicated in the retainer agreement, from the
complainant. It is true that it was Atty. Espejo who
In Del Mundo v. Capistrano,30 the Court emphasized for the filing fees is even admitted by the complainant
that: himself during the proceedings before the IBP-CBD, viz:
Indeed, when a lawyer takes a client’s cause, he ATTY. BAYOT: So, Atty. Espejo ask you for ₱50,000[.00]
covenants that he will exercise due diligence in as filing fee.
protecting the latter’s rights. Failure to exercise that
MR. RUBY: Admitted.
degree of vigilance and attention expected of a good
father of a family makes the lawyer unworthy of the ATTY. BAYOT: That when he asked you about that, Atty.
trust reposed on him by his client and makes him Bayot was not present.
answerable not just to his client but also to the legal
profession, the courts and society. His workload does MR. RUBY: Admitted.
not justify neglect in handling one’s case because it is xxxx
settled that a lawyer must only accept cases as much as
he can efficiently handle. ATTY. BAYOT: That later on you gave Atty. Espejo the
₱50,000[.00].
Moreover, a lawyer is obliged to hold in trust money of
his client that may come to his possession.1âwphi1 As MR. RUBY: Admitted.
trustee of such funds, he is bound to keep them ATTY. BAYOT: That Atty. Bayot was not also present at
separate and apart from his own. Money entrusted to a that time.
lawyer for a specific purpose such as for the filing and
processing of a case if not utilized, must be returned MR. RUBY: Admitted.
immediately upon demand. Failure to return gives rise
xxxx
to a presumption that he has misappropriated it in
violation of the trust reposed on him. And the ATTY. BAYOT: That never did Atty. Bayot ask you or
conversion of funds entrusted to him constitutes gross followed-up from you the ₱50,000[.00] that Atty. Espejo
violation of professional ethics and betrayal of public was asking as filing fee?
confidence in the legal profession.31 (Citations omitted)
MR. RUBY: Admitted.
Nevertheless, the administrative liability of a lawyer for
xxxx
any infractions of his duties attaches only to such
circumstances, which he is personally accountable for. It MR. RUBY: You have nothing to do with the
would be plainly unjust if a lawyer would be held ₱50,000[.00] that was Atty. Espejo.32
accountable for acts, which he did not commit.
Further, in her Answer, Atty. Espejo admitted that she
The Investigating Commissioner’s findings, which was was the one who failed to account for the filing fees,
adopted by the IBP Board of Governors, did not make a alleging that the files in her office were destroyed by
distinction as to which specific acts or omissions the flood. Likewise, the demand letters written by the
respondents are each personally responsible for. This is complainant, which were seeking the accounting for the
inequitable since either of the respondents may not be ₱50,000.00 filing fee, were all solely addressed to Atty.
held personally liable for the infractions committed by Espejo. Clearly, Atty. Bayot may not be held
the other. administratively liable for the failure to account for the
filing fees.
Atty. Bayot may not be held liable for the failure to
account for and return the excess of the ₱50,000.00 Atty. Bayot cannot also be held liable for the
which was paid by the complainant for the filing fees. ₱20,000.00 which Atty. Espejo asked from the
The evidence on record shows that it was Atty. Espejo complainant for "representation fee." The complainant
alone who received the said amount and that she was failed to adduce any evidence that would establish that
the one who paid the filing fees when the complaint Atty. Bayot knew of and came into possession of the
was filed with the RTC. That Atty. Bayot had no said amount paid by the complainant.
knowledge of the said amount paid by the complainant
On the other hand, Atty. Bayot is legally entitled to the
₱8,000.00 he received from the complainant on
September 23, 2009, the same being his share in the was still in the early stages; the pre-trial and trial have
acceptance fee agreed to by the complainant in the not even started yet. That they lost their bid for the
retainer agreement. He is likewise legally entitled to the issuance of a TRO is not tantamount to neglect on the
₱4,000.00 from the complainant on even date as it is part of Atty. Bayot.
the payment for his appearance fee in the hearing for
However, Atty. Bayot is not entirely without fault. This
the issuance of a TRO on September 22, 2009.
administrative complaint was brought about by his
However, Atty. Bayot is not entitled to the ₱4,000.00 intervention when the complainant sought the legal
which the complainant deposited to his bank account services of Atty. Espejo. Atty. Bayot undertook to
on October 23, 2009. Atty. Bayot admitted that there prepare the complaint to be filed with the RTC and the
was no hearing scheduled on the said date; their motion motion to serve summons through publication,
to serve summons through publication was not included attended the hearings, and advised the complainant as
in the RTC’s calendar that day. Accordingly, Atty. Bayot to the status of the case without formally entering his
is obliged to return the said amount to the complainant. appearance as counsel of record. He was able to obtain
remuneration for his legal services sans any direct
As regards the complainant’s charge of gross neglect
responsibility as to the progress of the case. Atty. Bayot
against Atty. Bayot, the Court finds the same
is reminded to be more circumspect in his dealings with
unsubstantiated. The Court has consistently held that in
clients. WHEREFORE, Atty. Rudolph Dilla Bayot is hereby
suspension or disbarment proceedings against lawyers,
ADMONISHED to exercise more prudence and
the lawyer enjoys the presumption of innocence, and
judiciousness in dealing with his clients. He is also
the burden of proof rests upon the complainant to
ordered to return to Michael Ruby within fifteen (15)
prove the allegations in his complaint.33
days from notice the amount of Four Thousand Pesos
A lawyer may be disbarred or suspended for gross (₱4,000.00) representing his appearance fee received
misconduct or for transgressions defined by the rules as from the latter on October 23, 2009 with a warning that
grounds to strip a lawyer of professional license. failure on his part to do so will result in the imposition
Considering, however, the serious consequences of of stiffer disciplinary action.
either penalty, the Court will exercise its power to
SO ORDERED.
disbar or suspend only upon a clear, convincing, and
satisfactory proof of misconduct that seriously affects
the standing of a lawyer as an officer of the court and as
member of the bar. A.C. No. 9395 November 12, 2014
The complainant merely alleged that, after the hearing DARIA O. DAGING, Complainant,
on the motion to serve summons through publication, vs.
the respondents had "made themselves scarce" and ATTY. RIZ TINGALON L. DAVIS, Respondent.
failed to update him on the status of the case before This administrative complaint for disbarment arose
the RTC. However, other than his bare allegations, the from an Affidavit Complaint1 filed by Daria O. Daging
complainant failed to present any evidence that would (complainant) before the Integrated Bar of the
show that Atty. Bayot was indeed remiss in his duties to Philippines (IBP), Benguet Chapter,2 against Atty. Riz
the complainant. Tingalon L. Davis (respondent).
However, the complainant’s November 4, 2009 Antecedents
letter34 to Atty. Espejo tells a different story. In the said
letter, the complainant asked Atty. Espejo to withdraw Complainant was the owner and operator of Nashville
as being the counsel of record in the case before the Country Music Lounge. She leased from Benjie Pinlac
RTC in favor of Atty. Bayot since he was the one who (Pinlac) a building spaGe located at No. 22 Otek St.,
actually prepared the pleadings and attended the Baguio City where she operated the bar.
hearings of their motions. In any case, the charge of Meanwhile, complainant received a Retainer
neglect against Atty. Bayot was premature, if not unfair, Proposal3 from Davis & Sabling Law Office signed by
considering that, at that time, the case before the RTC respondent and his partner Atty. Amos Saganib Sabling
(Atty. Sabling). This eventually resulted in the signing by purposes of conducting an inventory of all items at the
the complainant, the respondent and Atty. Sabling of a former Nashville Country Music Lounge;
Retainer Agreement4 dated March 7, 2005.
3.c Respondent [asked] Novie Balageo [the purpose of]
Because complainant was delinquent in paying the the inventory [to which] the latter x xx responded x xx
monthly rentals, Pinlac terminated the lease. Together that she entered into a lease contract with the present
with Novie Balageo (Balageo) and respondent, Pinlac administrator of the building, Benjie Pinlac;
went to complainant's music bar, inventoried all the
3.d Respondent, to his disbelief requested Novie
equipment therein, and informed her that Balageo
Balageo to go [to] the LAW OFFICE for further
would take over the operation of the bar. Complainant
clarification of the matter. Thereafter, Respondent was
averred that subsequently respondent acted as business
later informed that the business of Complainant was
partner of Balageo in operating the bar under her
taken over and operated by Mr. Benjie Pinlac for seven
business name, which they later renamed Amarillo
days. Furthermore, Mr. Benjie Pinlac offered the said
Music Bar.
place to Novie Balageo which the latter readily
Complainant likewise alleged that she filed an accepted;
ejectment case against Pinlac and Balageo before the
3.e [Left] with no recourse, Respondent requested one
Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Branch 1, Baguio
of his staff to assist Novie Balageo in conducting an
City. At that time, Davis & Sabling Law Office was still
inventory. Furthermore, Respondent never acted as
her counsel as their Retainer Agreement remained
partner of Novie Balageo in operating the former
subsisting and in force. However, respondent appeared
Nashville Country Music Lounge;
as counsel for Balageo in that ejectment case and filed,
on behalf of the latter, an Answer with Opposition to 3.f When Complainant filed the civil case for Ejectment
the Prayer for the Issuance of a Writ of Preliminary against Novie Balageo and Benjie Pinlac, Respondent
Injunction.5 represented the former thereof without taking
advantage of the retainership contract between the DA
In his Comment,6 respondent denied participation in the
VIS and SABLING LAW OFFICE [and] Complainant as
takeover or acting as a business partner of Balageo in
Respondent has no knowledge or information of any
the operation of the bar. He asserted that Balageo is the
matters related by complainant to Atty. Sabling
sole proprietress of the establishment. He insisted that
regarding the former' s business;
it was Atty. Sabling, his partner, who initiated the
proposal and was in fact the one who was able to 3.g While the Complaint was pending, respondent was
convince complainant to accept the law office as her xx x informed by Novie Balageo and Benjie Pinlac of the
retainer. Respondent maintained that he never truth of all matters x x x which x x x Respondent [was
obtained any knowledge or information regarding the unaware of];
business of complainant who used to consult only Atty.
Sabling. Respondent admitted though having 3.h However, for the interest of justice and fair play, x x
represented Balageo in the ejectment case, but denied x Respondent [deemed it prudent] to xx x withdraw as
that he took advantage of the Retainer Agreement Counsel for Novie Balageo. Hence, Respondent filed his
between complainant and Davis and Sabling Law Office. Motion to Withdraw As Counsel. x x x
Thus: 3.i The civil case was subsequently dismissed for lack of
3.a Prior to the engagement of the Complainant of the jurisdiction over the [Complaint's] subject matter. x x x7
DAVIS and SABLING LAW OFFICE as her retainer, Novie On October 15, 2008, the Investigating Commissioner
Balageo was already one of the Clients of Respondent in rendered a Report and Recommendation8 finding
several cases; respondent guilty of betrayal of his client's trust and for
3.b Sometime in the last week of the month of May misuse of information obtained from his client to the
2005, while Respondent was in his office doing some disadvantage of the latter and to the advantage of
legal works, Novie Balageo called up Respondent another person. He recommended that respondent be
informing the latter that his assistance is needed for suspended from the practice oflaw for a period of one
year.
On December 11, 2008, the IBP Board of Governors and has no knowledge of any information or legal
adopted and approved the Report and matter complainant entrusted or confided to his law
Recommendation of the Investigating partner. He thus inveigles that he could not have taken
Commissioner.9 Upon motion of the respondent, it advantage of an information obtained by his law firm by
reduced the penalty imposed to six months suspension virtue of the Retainer Agreement. We are not
considering that there is no proof that respondent impressed. In Hilado v. David,15 reiterated in Gonzales v.
actually handled any previous legal matters involving Atty. Cabucana, Jr.,16 this Court held that a lawyer who
complainant.10 takes up the cause of the adversary of the party who
has engaged the services of his law firm brings the law
Our Ruling
profession into public disrepute and suspicion and
It is undisputed that complainant entered into a undermines the integrity of justice. Thus, respondent's
Retainer Agreement dated March 7, 2005 with argument that he never took advantage of any
respondent's law firm. This agreement was signed by information acquired by his law finn in the course of its
the respondent and attached to the rollo of this case. professional dealings with the complainant, even
And during the subsistence of said Retainer Agreement, assuming it to be true, is of no moment. Undeniably
respondent represented and defended Balageo, who aware of the fact that complainant is a client of his law
was impleaded as one of the defendants in the firm, respondent should have immediately informed
ejectment case complainant filed before the MTCC of both the complainant and Balageo that he, as well as
Baguio City. In fact, respondent filed on behalf of said the other members of his law firm, cannot represent
Balageo an Answer with Opposition to the Prayer for any of them in their legal tussle; otherwise, they would
the Issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Injunction dated be representing conflicting interests and violate the
July 11, 2005. It was only on August 26, 2005 when Code of Professional Responsibility. Indeed, respondent
respondent withdrew his appearance for Balageo. could have simply advised both complainant and
Balageo to instead engage the services of another
Based on the established facts, it is indubitable that lawyer.
respondent transgressed Rule 15.03 of Canon 15 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility.1âwphi1 It provides: The penalty for representing conflicting interests may
either be reprimand or suspension from the practice of
Rule 15.03 -A lawyer shall not represent conflicting law ranging from six months to two years.17 We thus
interests except by written consent of all concerned adopt the recommendation of the IBP Board of
given after a full disclosure of the facts. Governors.
"A lawyer may not, without being guilty of professional WHEREFORE, the Court ADOPTS and AFFIRMS the
misconduct, act as counsel for a person whose interest January 15, 2012 Resolution of the Integrated Bar of the
conflicts with that of his present or former client."11 The Philippines Board of Governors. Atty. Riz Tingalon L.
prohibition against representing conflicting interests is Davis is found GUILTY of violating Rule 15.03, Canon 15
absolute and the rule applies even if the lawyer has of the Code of Professional Responsibility and is hereby
acted in good faith and with no intention to represent SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of six
conflicting interests.12 In Quiambao v. Atty. (6) months effective upon receipt of this Resolution. He
Bamba,13 this Court emphasized that lawyers are is warned that a commission of the same or similar
expected not only to keep inviolate the client's offense in the future will result in the imposition of a
confidence, but also to avoid the appearance of stiffer penalty.
treachery and double-dealing for only then can litigants
be encouraged to entrust their secrets to their lawyers, Let a copy of this Resolution be entered into the records
which is of paramount importance in the administration of Atty. Riz Tingalon L. Davis and furnished to the Office
of justice.14 of the Clerk of Court, the Office of the Bar Confidant,
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and all courts in
Respondent argues that while complainant is a client of the Philippines, for their information and guidance.
Davis & Sabling Law office, her case is actually handled
only by his partner Atty. Sabling. He was not privy to Atty. Riz Tingalon L. Davis is DIRECTED to inform the
any transaction between Atty. Sabling and complainant Court of the date of his receipt of this Resolution.
SO ORDERED. them, and that they could settle the cases with Sison
and her group, with him guaranteeing the turnover to
them of a certain property located in Antipolo City
A.C. No. 6664 July 16, 2013 belonging to ICS Corporation in exchange for their
desistance. They acceded and executed the affidavit of
FERDINAND A. SAMSON, Complainant, desistance he prepared, and in turn they received a
vs. deed of assignment covering land registered under
ATTY. EDGARDO O. ERA, Respondent. Transfer Certificate of Title No. R-4475 executed by
An attorney who wittingly represents and serves Sison in behalf of ICS Corporation.3
conflicting interests may be suspended from the Samson and his relatives later demanded from Atty. Era
practice of law, or even disbarred when circumstances that they be given instead a deed of absolute sale to
so warrant. enable them to liquidate the property among
Antecedents themselves. It took some period of negotiations
between them and Atty. Era before the latter delivered
Ferdinand A. Samson has brought this complaint for to them on November 27, 2003 five copies of a deed of
disbarment charging respondent Atty. Edgardo O. Era absolute sale involving the property. However, Atty. Era
with violation of his trust and confidence of a client by told them that whether or not the title of the property
representing the interest of Emilia C. Sison, his present had been encumbered or free from lien or defect would
client, in a manner that blatantly conflicted with his no longer be his responsibility. He further told them
interest. that as far as he was concerned he had already
accomplished his professional responsibility towards
Samson and his relatives were among the investors who
them upon the amicable settlement of the cases
fell prey to the pyramiding scam perpetrated by ICS
between them and ICS Corporation.4
Exports, Inc. Exporter, Importer, and Multi-Level
Marketing Business (ICS Corporation), a corporation When Samson and his co-complainants verified the title
whose corporate officers were led by Sison. The other of the property at the Registry of Deeds and the
officers were Ireneo C. Sison, William C. Sison, Mimosa Assessor’s Office of Antipolo City, they were dismayed
H. Zamudio, Mirasol H. Aguilar and Jhun Sison. to learn that they could not liquidate the property
because it was no longer registered under the name of
Samson engaged Atty. Era to represent and assist him
ICS Corporation but was already under the name of
and his relatives in the criminal prosecution of Sison and
Bank Wise Inc.5 Upon their urging, Atty. Era negotiated
her group. Pursuant to the engagement, Atty. Era
as their counsel with ICS Corporation.
prepared the demand letter dated July 19, 2002
demanding the return or refund of the money subject Due to the silence of Atty. Era for sometime thereafter,
of their complaints. He also prepared the complaint- Samson and his group wrote to him on September 8,
affidavit that Samson signed and swore to on July 26, 2004 to remind him about his guarantee and the
2002. Subsequently, the complaint-affidavit charging promise to settle the issues with Sison and her cohorts.
Sison and the other corporate officials of ICS But they did not hear from Atty. Era at all.6
Corporation with several counts of estafa1was
presented to the Office of the City Prosecutor of During the hearings in the RTC, Atty. Era did not
Quezon City (OCPQC). After the preliminary anymore appear for Samson and his group. This forced
investigation, the OCPQC formally charged Sison and them to engage another lawyer. They were shocked to
the others with several counts of estafa in the Regional find out later on, however, that Atty. Era had already
Trial Court, Branch 96 (RTC), in Quezon City.2 been entering his appearance as the counsel for Sison in
her other criminal cases in the other branches of the
In April 2003, Atty. Era called a meeting with Samson RTC in Quezon City involving the same pyramiding scam
and his relatives to discuss the possibility of an amicable that she and her ICS Corporation had perpetrated.7 In
settlement with Sison and her cohorts. He told Samson this regard, they established Atty. Era’s legal
and the others that undergoing a trial of the cases representation of Sison by submitting several certified
would just be a waste of time, money and effort for copies of the minutes of the proceedings in the criminal
cases involving Sison and her group issued by Branch interests, for failing to serve his clients with
102 and Branch 220 of the RTC in Quezon City showing competence and diligence, and for failing to champion
that Atty. Era had appeared as the counsel of Sison in his clients’ cause with wholehearted fidelity, care and
the cases for estafa pending and being tried in said devotion.
courts.8 They also submitted a certification issued on
The Investigating Commissioner observed that the
November 3, 2004 indicating that Atty. Era had visited
evidence did not sustain Atty. Era’s claim that his legal
Sison, an inmate in the Female Dormitory in Camp
services as counsel for Samson and his group had
Karingal, Sikatuna Village, Quezon City as borne out by
terminated on April 23, 2003 upon the execution of the
the blotter logbook of that unit.9
compromise settlement of the criminal cases; that he
On January 20, 2005, Samson executed an affidavit even admitted during the mandatory conference that
alleging the foregoing antecedents, and praying for there was no formal termination of his legal
Atty. Era’s disbarment on the ground of his violation of services;17 that his professional obligation towards
the trust, confidence and respect reposed in him as Samson and his group as his clients did not end upon
their counsel.10 execution of the settlement agreement, because he
remained duty-bound to see to it that the settlement
Upon being required by the Court to comment on the
was duly implemented; that he also had the obligation
complaint against him within 10 days from notice, Atty.
to appear in the criminal cases until their termination;
Era several times sought the extension of his period to
and that his acceptance of the engagement to appear in
file the comment to supposedly enable him to collate
behalf of Sison invited suspicion of his double-dealing
documents relevant to his comment.11 The Court
and unfaithfulness.
granted his request and allowed him an extension
totaling 40 days. But despite the lapse of the extended The Investigating Commissioner recommended that
period, he did not file his comment. Atty. Era be suspended from the practice of law for six
months, viz:
On September 27, 2005, Samson reiterated his
complaint for disbarment against Atty. Era.12 From the foregoing, it is clear that respondent is guilty
of misconduct for representing conflicting interests,
By its resolution dated March 1, 2006,13 the Court
failing to serve his client, complainant herein, with
required Atty. Era to show cause why he should not be
competence and diligence and champion the latter’s
disciplinarily dealt with or held in contempt for such
cause with wholehearted fidelity, care and devotion. It
failure to submit his comment.
is respectfully recommended that respondent be
In the comment that he subsequently filed on April 11, SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of six
2006 in the Office of the Bar Confidant,14 Atty. Era (6) months and WARNED that a repetition of the same
alleged that the conclusion on April 23, 2002 of the or similar act would merit a more severe penalty.18
compromise settlement between Samson and his
In Resolution No. XVIII-2007-195 passed on October 19,
group, on one hand, and Sison and her ICS Corporation,
2007,19 the IBP Board of Governors adopted and
on the other, had terminated the lawyer-client
approved the report and recommendation of the
relationship between him and Samson and his group;
Investigating Commissioner of the IBP-CBD, with the
and that on September 1, 2003, he had been appointed
modification that Atty. Era be suspended from the
as counsel de officio for Sison by Branch 102 of the RTC
practice of law for two years.
in Quezon City only for purposes of her arraignment.
On June 9, 2012, the IBP Board of Governors passed
On July 17, 2006, the Court referred the case to the
Resolution No. XX-2012-180,20 denying Atty. Era’s
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation,
motion for reconsideration and affirming Resolution No.
report and recommendation.15
XVIII-2007-195.
In his report and recommendation dated October 1,
The IBP Board of Governors then forwarded the case to
2007,16 the Investigating Commissioner of the IBP
the Court pursuant to Section 12(b), Rule 139-B of the
Commission on Bar Discipline (IBPCBD) found Atty. Era
Rules of Court.21
guilty of misconduct for representing conflicting
On October 17, 2012, Atty. Era filed a Manifestation and There is conflict of interest when a lawyer represents
Motion (With Leave of Court).22 However, on November inconsistent interests of two or more opposing parties.
26, 2012, the Court merely noted the manifestation, The test is "whether or not in behalf of one client, it is
and denied the motion for its lack of merit.23 the lawyer’s duty to fight for an issue or claim, but it is
his duty to oppose it for the other client. In brief, if he
Ruling
argues for one client, this argument will be opposed by
We affirm the findings of the IBP. him when he argues for the other client." This rule
covers not only cases in which confidential
In his petition for disbarment, Samson charged Atty. Era communications have been confided, but also those in
with violating Canon 15 of the Code of Professional which no confidence has been bestowed or will be
Responsibility for representing conflicting interests by used. Also, there is conflict of interests if the acceptance
accepting the responsibility of representing Sison in the of the new retainer will require the attorney to perform
cases similar to those in which he had undertaken to an act which will injuriously affect his first client in any
represent Samson and his group, notwithstanding that matter in which he represents him and also whether he
Sison was the very same person whom Samson and his will be called upon in his new relation to use against his
group had accused with Atty. Era’s legal assistance. He first client any knowledge acquired through their
had drafted the demand letters and the complaint- connection. Another test of the inconsistency of
affidavit that became the bases for the filing of the interests is whether the acceptance of a new relation
estafa charges against Sison and the others in the RTC in will prevent an attorney from the full discharge of his
Quezon City. duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty to his client or
Atty. Era’s contention that the lawyer-client relationship invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double dealing in
ended when Samson and his group entered into the the performance thereof.28
compromise settlement with Sison on April 23, 2002 The prohibition against conflict of interest rests on five
was unwarranted. The lawyer-client relationship did not rationales, rendered as follows:
terminate as of then, for the fact remained that he still
needed to oversee the implementation of the x x x. First, the law seeks to assure clients that their
settlement as well as to proceed with the criminal cases lawyers will represent them with undivided loyalty. A
until they were dismissed or otherwise concluded by client is entitled to be represented by a lawyer whom
the trial court. It is also relevant to indicate that the the client can trust. Instilling such confidence is an
execution of a compromise settlement in the criminal objective important in itself. x x x.
cases did not ipso facto cause the termination of the
Second, the prohibition against conflicts of interest
cases not only because the approval of the compromise
seeks to enhance the effectiveness of legal
by the trial court was still required, but also because the
representation. To the extent that a conflict of interest
compromise would have applied only to the civil aspect,
undermines the independence of the lawyer’s
and excluded the criminal aspect pursuant to Article
professional judgment or inhibits a lawyer from working
2034 of the Civil Code.24
with appropriate vigor in the client’s behalf, the client’s
Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the Code of Professional expectation of effective representation x x x could be
Responsibility provides that: "A lawyer shall not compromised.
represent conflicting interests except by written
Third, a client has a legal right to have the lawyer
consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of
safeguard the client’s confidential information
the facts." Atty. Era thus owed to Samson and his group
xxx.1âwphi1 Preventing use of confidential client
entire devotion to their genuine interest, and warm zeal
information against the interests of the client, either to
in the maintenance and defense of their rights.25 He was
benefit the lawyer’s personal interest, in aid of some
expected to exert his best efforts and ability to preserve
other client, or to foster an assumed public purpose is
the clients’ cause, for the unwavering loyalty displayed
facilitated through conflicts rules that reduce the
to his clients likewise served the ends of justice.26
opportunity for such abuse.
In Hornilla v. Atty. Salunat,27 the Court discussed the
concept of conflict of interest in this wise:
Fourth, conflicts rules help ensure that lawyers will not The lawyer’s highest and most unquestioned duty is to
exploit clients, such as by inducing a client to make a protect the client at all hazards and costs even to
gift to the lawyer xxx. himself.35The protection given to the client is perpetual
and does not cease with the termination of the
Finally, some conflict-of-interest rules protect interests
litigation, nor is it affected by the client’s ceasing to
of the legal system in obtaining adequate presentations
employ the attorney and retaining another, or by any
to tribunals. In the absence of such rules, for example, a
other change of relation between them. It even survives
lawyer might appear on both sides of the litigation,
the death of the client.36
complicating the process of taking proof and
compromise adversary argumentation x x x.29 In the absence of the express consent from Samson and
his group after full disclosure to them of the conflict of
The rule prohibiting conflict of interest was fashioned to
interest, therefore, the most ethical thing for Atty. Era
prevent situations wherein a lawyer would be
to have done was either to outrightly decline
representing a client whose interest is directly adverse
representing and entering his appearance as counsel for
to any of his present or former clients. In the same way,
Sison, or to advice Sison to engage another lawyer for
a lawyer may only be allowed to represent a client
herself. Unfortunately, he did neither, and should now
involving the same or a substantially related matter that
suffer the proper sanction.
is materially adverse to the former client only if the
former client consents to it after consultation.30 The WHEREFORE, the Court FINDS and PRONOUNCES Atty.
rule is grounded in the fiduciary obligation of EDGARDO O. ERA guilty of violating Rule 15.03 of Canon
loyalty.31 Throughout the course of a lawyer-client 15, and Canon 17 of the Code of Professional
relationship, the lawyer learns all the facts connected Responsibility; and SUSPENDS him from the practice of
with the client's case, including the weak and strong law for two years effective upon his receipt of this
points of the case. Knowledge and information gathered decision, with a warning that his commission of a similar
in the course of the relationship must be treated as offense will be dealt with more severely.
sacred and guarded with care.1âwphi1 It behooves
Let copies of this decision be included in the personal
lawyers not only to keep inviolate the client’s
record of Atty. EDGARDO 0. ERA and entered m his file
confidence, but also to avoid the appearance of
in the Office of the Bar Confidant.
treachery and double-dealing, for only then can litigants
be encouraged to entrust their secrets to their lawyers, Let copies of this decision be disseminated to all lower
which is paramount in the administration of courts by the Office of the Court Administrator, as well
justice.32 The nature of that relationship is, therefore, as to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for its
one of trust and confidence of the highest degree.33 guidance.
Contrary to Atty. Era’s ill-conceived attempt to explain SO ORDERED.
his disloyalty to Samson and his group, the termination
of the attorney-client relationship does not justify a
lawyer to represent an interest adverse to or in conflict A.C. No. 9537 June 10, 2013
with that of the former client. The spirit behind this rule (Formerly CBD Case No. 09-2489)
is that the client’s confidence once given should not be
stripped by the mere expiration of the professional DR. TERESITA LEE, Complainant,
employment. Even after the severance of the relation, a vs.
lawyer should not do anything that will injuriously affect ATTY. AMADOR L. SIMANDO, Respondent.
his former client in any matter in which the lawyer
Before us is a Petition for Disbarment1 dated July 21,
previously represented the client. Nor should the
2009 filed by Dr. Teresita Lee (Dr. Lee) against
lawyer disclose or use any of the client’s confidences
respondent Atty. Amador L. Simando (Atty. Simando)
acquired in the previous relation.34 In this regard, Canon
before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines-
17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility expressly
Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD), docketed as
declares that: "A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his
CBD Case No. 09-2489, now A.C. No. 9537, for violation
client and he shall be mindful of the trust and
of the Code of Judicial Ethics of Lawyers.
confidence reposed in him."
The facts of the case, as culled from the records, are as When the said obligation became due, despite Dr. Lee's
follows: repeated demands, Mejorado failed and refused to
comply with his obligation. Since Atty. Simando was still
Atty. Simando was the retained counsel of complainant
her lawyer then, Dr. Lee instructed him to initiate legal
Dr. Lee from November 2004 until January 8, 2008, with
action against Mejorado. Atty. Simando said he would
a monthly retainer fee of Three Thousand Pesos
get in touch with Mejorado and ask him to pay his
(Php3,000.00).2
obligation without having to resort to legal action.
Sometime during the above-mentioned period, Atty. However, even after several months, Mejorado still
Simando went to see Dr. Lee and asked if the latter failed to pay Dr. Lee, so she again asked Atty. Simando
could help a certain Felicito M. Mejorado (Mejorado) why no payment has been made yet. Dr. Lee then
for his needed funds. He claimed that Mejorado was reminded Atty. Simando that he was supposed to be
then awaiting the release of his claim for informer's the co-maker of the obligation of Mejorado, to which he
reward from the Bureau of Customs. Because Dr. Lee replied: "Di kasuhan din ninyo ako!"5
did not know Mejorado personally and she claimed to
Despite complainant's repeated requests, respondent
be not in the business of lending money, the former
ignored her and failed to bring legal actions against
initially refused to lend money. But Atty. Simando
Mejorado. Thus, in January 2008, complainant was
allegedly persisted and assured her that Mejorado will
forced to terminate her contract with Atty. Simando.
pay his obligation and will issue postdated checks and
sign promissory notes. He allegedly even offered to be Subsequently, complainant's new lawyer, Atty. Gilbert
the co-maker of Mejorado and assured her that Morandarte, sent a demand letter dated June 13, 2008
Mejorado's obligation will be paid when due. Atty. to Atty. Simando in his capacity as the co-maker of
Simando was quoted saying: "Ipapahamak ba kita, some of the loans of Mejorado.
kliyente kita"; "Sigurado ito, kung gusto mo,
In his Letter dated June 30, 2008, respondent denied his
gagarantiyahan ko pa ito, at pipirma din ako"; "Isang
liability as a co-maker and claimed that novation had
buwan lang, at hindi hihigit sa dalawang buwan ito,
occurred because complainant had allegedly given
bayad ka na."3
additional loans to Mejorado without his knowledge.6
Due to Atty. Simando's persistence, his daily calls and
Dr. Lee then accused Atty. Simando of violating the
frequent visits to convince Dr. Lee, the latter gave in to
trust and confidence which she gave upon him as her
her lawyer's demands, and finally agreed to give
lawyer, and even took advantage of their professional
Mejorado sizeable amounts of money. Respondent
relationship in order to get a loan for his client. Worse,
acted as co-maker with Mejorado in various cash loans,
when the said obligation became due, respondent was
to wit:4
unwilling to help her to favor Mejorado. Thus, the
Date: Amount instant petition for disbarment against Atty. Simando.
Meanwhile, Atty. Simando stressed that Dr. Lee gave In her Reply dated October 30, 2009, Dr. Lee denied
Mejorado a total of Php700,000.00 as an investment that what she entered into was a mere investment. She
but he signed as co-maker in all the receipts showing insisted that she lent the money to Mejorado and
double the amount or Php1,400,000.00.10 respondent, in his capacity as co-maker and the
transaction was actually a loan.16 To prove her claim, Dr.
Respondent claimed that complainant is a money-
Lee submitted the written loan agreements/receipts
lender exacting high interest rates from borrowers.11 He
which categorically stated that the money received was
narrated several instances and civil cases where
a loan with due dates, signed by Mejorado and
complainant was engaged in money-lending where he
respondent as co-maker.17 She further claimed that she
divulged that even after defendants had already paid
did not know Mejorado and it was respondent who
their loan, complainant still persists in collecting from
brought him to her and requested her to assist
them.12 Respondent asserted that he knew of these
Mejorado by lending him money as, in fact, respondent
transactions, because he was among the four lawyers
even vouched for Mejorado and agreed to sign as co-
who handled complainant's case.13
maker.
Respondent averred that from the time that Mejorado
Complainant further emphasized that what she was
and Dr. Lee had become close to each other, the latter
collecting is the payment only of the loan amounting to
had given Mejorado additional investments and one (1)
One Million Four Hundred Thousand Pesos
Silverado Pick-up at the price of ₱500,000.00 and fifty
(Php1,400,000.00) which respondent had signed as co-
(50) sacks of old clothings. He claimed that the
maker. Thus, respondent's claim that his obligation was
additional investments made by Dr. Lee to Mejorado
already extinguished by novation holds no water, since
were given without his knowledge.
what was being collected is merely his obligation
Atty. Simando further alleged that with Dr. Lee's pertaining to the loan amounting to Php1,400,000.00
investment of around ₱2 Million which included the only, and nothing more.
Silverado Pick-up and the fifty (50) sacks of old
Finally, complainant lamented that respondent, in his
clothings, the latter required Mejorado to issue five (5)
comments, even divulged confidential informations he
checks with a total value of ₱7,033,500.00, an amount
had acquired while he was still her lawyer and even
more than the actual value which Mejorado received.14
used it against her in the present case, thus, committing
Atty. Simando added that while Dr. Lee and Mejorado another unethical conduct. She, therefore, maintained
agreed that the issued checks shall be presented to the that respondent is guilty of violating the lawyer-client
bank only upon payment of his informer's reward, Dr. confidentiality rule.
Lee presented the checks to the bank despite being
Both parties failed to appear during the mandatory
aware that Mejorado's account had no funds for said
conference on January 15, 2010. Both parties requested
checks. Atty. Simando further denied that he refused to
for resetting of the mandatory conference, however,
take legal action against Mejorado. He claimed that
both failed to agree on a certain date. Hence, the IBP,
complainant never instructed him to file legal action,
so as not to delay the disposition of the complaint,
since the latter knew that Mejorado is obligated to pay
terminated the mandatory conference and instead
only upon receipt of his informer's reward.
required the parties to submit their respective position
Finally, Atty. Simando insisted that he did not violate papers.18
their lawyerclient relationship, since Dr. Lee voluntarily
On March 18, 2010, the IBP-CBD found Atty. Simando
made the financial investment with Mejorado and that
guilty of violating the Code of Professional
he merely introduced complainant to Mejorado. He
Responsibility. It recommended that respondent be
further claimed that there is no conflict of interest
suspended from the practice of law for six (6) months.
because he is Mejorado's lawyer relative to the latter's
claim for informer's reward, and not Mejorado's lawyer
On December 29, 2010, the IBP Board of Governors Third, Atty. Simando admitted that he was the one who
adopted and approved the Report and introduced complainant and Mejorado to each other for
Recommendation of the IBP-CBD to suspend Atty. the purpose of entering into a financial transaction
Simando from the practice of law for a period of six (6) while having knowledge that complainant's interests
months. could possibly run in conflict with Mejorado's interests
which ironically such client's interests, he is duty-bound
Respondent moved for reconsideration.
to protect;
On March 10, 2012, the IBP Board of Governors granted
Fourth, despite the knowledge of the conflicting
respondent's motion for reconsideration for lack of
interests between his two clients, respondent
sufficient evidence to warrant the penalty of
consented in the parties' agreement and even signed as
suspension. The Resolution dated December 29, 2010
co-maker to the loan agreement;
was reversed and the case against respondent was
dismissed. Fifth, respondent's knowledge of the conflicting
interests between his two clients was demonstrated
RULING
further by his own actions, when he:
We reverse the ruling of the IBP Board of Governors.
(a) failed to act on Mejorado's failure to pay his
Jurisprudence has provided three tests in determining obligation to complainant despite the latter's
whether a lawyer is guilty of representing conflicting instruction to do so;
interest:
(b) denied liability despite signing as co-maker in the
One test is whether a lawyer is duty-bound to fight for receipts/promissory notes arising from the loan
an issue or claim in behalf of one client and, at the same agreement between his two clients;
time, to oppose that claim for the other client. Thus, if a
(c) rebutted complainant's allegations against Mejorado
lawyer’s argument for one client has to be opposed by
and him, and even divulged informations he acquired
that same lawyer in arguing for the other client, there is
while he was still complainant's lawyer.
a violation of the rule.
Clearly, it is improper for respondent to appear as
Another test of inconsistency of interests is whether the
counsel for one party (complainant as creditor) against
acceptance of a new relation would prevent the full
the adverse party (Mejorado as debtor) who is also his
discharge of the lawyer’s duty of undivided fidelity and
client, since a lawyer is prohibited from representing
loyalty to the client or invite suspicion of unfaithfulness
conflicting interests. He may not, without being guilty of
or double-dealing in the performance of that duty. Still
professional misconduct, act as counsel for a person
another test is whether the lawyer would be called
whose interest conflict with that of his present or
upon in the new relation to use against a former client
former client.
any confidential information acquired through their
connection or previous employment.19 Respondent's assertion that there is no conflict of
interest because complainant and respondent are his
In the instant case, we find substantial evidence to
clients in unrelated cases fails to convince. His
support respondent's violation of the above
representation of opposing clients in both cases, though
parameters, as established by the following
unrelated, obviously constitutes conflict of interest or,
circumstances on record:
at the least, invites suspicion of double-
First, it is undisputed that there was a lawyer-client dealing.20 Moreover, with the subject loan agreement
relationship between complainant and Atty. Simando as entered into by the complainant and Mejorado, who
evidenced by the retainer fees received by respondent are both his clients, readily shows an apparent conflict
and the latter's representation in certain legal matters of interest, moreso when he signed as co-maker.
pertaining to complainant's business;
Likewise, respondent's argument that the money
Second, Atty. Simando admitted that Mejorado is received was an investment and not a loan is difficult to
another client of him albeit in a case claiming rewards accept, considering that he signed as co-maker.
against the Bureau of Customs; Respondent is a lawyer and it is objectionable that he
would sign as co-maker if he knew all along that the client. The reason for the rule is that the client’s
intention of the parties was to engage in a mere confidence once reposed cannot be divested by the
investment. Also, as a lawyer, signing as a co-maker, it expiration of the professional employment.
can be presupposed that he is aware of the nature of Consequently, a lawyer should not, even after the
suretyship and the consequences of signing as co- severance of the relation with his client, do anything
maker. Therefore, he cannot escape liability without which will injuriously affect his former client in any
exposing himself from administrative liability, if not civil matter in which he previously represented him nor
liability. Moreover, we noted that while complainant should he disclose or use any of the client's confidences
was able to show proof of receipts of various amounts acquired in the previous relation.
of money loaned and received by Mejorado, and signed
Accordingly, we reiterate that lawyers are enjoined to
by the respondent as co-maker, the latter, however,
look at any representation situation from "the point of
other than his bare denials, failed to show proof that
view that there are possible conflicts," and further, "to
the money given was an investment and not a loan.
think in terms of impaired loyalty" that is to evaluate if
It must be stressed that the proscription against his representation in any way will impair loyalty to a
representation of conflicting interests finds application client.26
where the conflicting interests arise with respect to the
WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Court resolves
same general matter however slight the adverse
to ADOPT the findings and recommendation of the IBP
interest may be. It applies even if the conflict pertains
in Resolution No. XIX-20 10-733 suspending respondent
to the lawyer’s private activity or in the performance of
Atty. Amador L. Simando for six ( 6) months from the
a function in a non-professional capacity. In the process
practice of law, with a WARNING that a repetition of the
of determining whether there is a conflict of interest, an
same or similar offense will warrant a more severe
important criterion is probability, not certainty, of
penalty.
conflict.21
Let copies of this Decision be furnished all courts, the
We likewise note that respondent offered several
Office of the Bar Confidant and the Integrated Bar of
excuses in order to avoid payment of his
the Philippines for their information and guidance. The
liability.1âwphi1 First, in his Answer to complainant's
Office of the Bar Confidant is DIRECTED to append a
demand letter, he claimed there was novation which
copy of this Decision to respondent's record as member
extinguished his liability; Secondly, he claimed that the
of the Bar.
amount received by Mejorado for which he signed as
co-maker was merely an investment and not a loan. Atty. Simando is DIRECTED to inform the Court of the
Finally, he alleged that it was agreed that the date of his receipt of this Decision so that we can
investment with profits will be paid only after Mejorado determine the reckoning point when his suspension
receives the payment for his claim for reward which shall take effect.
complainant violated when she presented the checks
for payment prematurely. These actuations of Atty. This Decision shall be immediately executory.
Simando do not speak well of his reputation as a SO ORDERED.
lawyer.22
Respondent insisted that she represented the group of Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the Code of Professional
investors of Multitel and that she merely mediated in responsibility provides:
the settlement of the claims her clients had against the Rule 15.03 – A lawyer shall not represent conflicting
complainant. She also averred that the results of the interests except by written consent of all concerned
settlement between both parties were fully given after full disclosure of the facts.
documented and accounted for.36 Respondent believes
that her act in helping complainant resolve his legal This prohibition is founded on principles of public
problem did not violate any ethical standard and was, in policy, good taste43 and, more importantly, upon
fact, in accord with Rule 2.02 of the Code of necessity. In the course of a lawyer-client relationship,
Professional Responsibility.37 the lawyer learns all the facts connected with the
client’s case, including its weak and strong points. Such
To bolster her claim that the complaint was without knowledge must be considered sacred and guarded
basis, respondent noted that a complaint for estafa was with care. No opportunity must be given to him to take
also filed against her by complainant before the Office advantage of his client; for if the confidence is abused,
of the City Prosecutor in Quezon City citing the same the profession will suffer by the loss thereof.44 It
grounds. The complaint was, however, dismissed by behooves lawyers not only to keep inviolate the client’s
Assistant City Prosecutor Josephus Joannes H. Asis for confidence, but also to avoid the appearance of
insufficiency of evidence.38 Respondent argued that on treachery and double ─ dealing for only then can
this basis alone, the administrative case must also be litigants be encouraged to entrust their secrets to their
dismissed. lawyers, which is paramount in the administration of
In her Position Paper,39 respondent also questioned the justice.45 It is for these reasons that we have described
admissibility of the electronic evidence submitted by the attorney-client relationship as one of trust and
complainant to the IBP’s Commission on Bar Discipline. confidence of the highest degree.46
Respondent maintained that the e-mail and the text Respondent must have known that her act of constantly
messages allegedly sent by respondent to complainant and actively communicating with complainant, who, at
that time, was beleaguered with demands from communications have been confided, but also those in
investors of Multitel, eventually led to the which no confidence has been bestowed or will be
establishment of a lawyer-client relationship. used. Also, there is conflict of interests if the acceptance
Respondent cannot shield herself from the inevitable of the new retainer will require the attorney to perform
consequences of her actions by simply saying that the an act which will injuriously affect his first client in any
assistance she rendered to complainant was only in the matter in which he represents him and also whether he
form of "friendly accommodations,"47 precisely because will be called upon in his new relation to use against his
at the time she was giving assistance to complainant, first client any knowledge acquired through their
she was already privy to the cause of the opposing connection. Another test of the inconsistency of
parties who had been referred to her by the SEC.48 interests is whether the acceptance of a new relation
will prevent an attorney from the full discharge of his
Respondent also tries to disprove the existence of such
duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty to his client or
relationship by arguing that no written contract for the
invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double dealing in
engagement of her services was ever forged between
the performance thereof.52
her and complainant.49 This argument all the more
reveals respondent’s patent ignorance of fundamental Indubitably, respondent took advantage of
laws on contracts and of basic ethical standards complainant’s hapless situation, initially, by giving him
expected from an advocate of justice. The IBP was legal advice and, later on, by soliciting money and
correct when it said: properties from him. Thereafter, respondent impressed
upon complainant that she had acted with utmost
The absence of a written contract will not preclude the
sincerity in helping him divest all the properties
finding that there was a professional relationship
entrusted to him in order to absolve him from any
between the parties. Documentary formalism is not an
liability. But simultaneously, she was also doing the
essential element in the employment of an attorney;
same thing to impress upon her clients, the party
the contract may be express or implied. To establish the
claimants against Multitel, that she was doing
relation, it is sufficient that the advice and assistance of
everything to reclaim the money they invested with
an attorney is sought and received in any matter
Multitel. Respondent herself admitted to complainant
pertinent to his profession.50 (Emphasis
that without the latter’s help, she would not have been
supplied.)1awphi1
able to earn as much and that, as a token of her
Given the situation, the most decent and ethical thing appreciation, she was willing to share some of her
which respondent should have done was either to earnings with complainant.53 Clearly, respondent’s act is
advise complainant to engage the services of another shocking, as it not only violated Rule 9.02, Canon 9 of
lawyer since she was already representing the opposing the Code of Professional Responsibility,54 but also toyed
parties, or to desist from acting as representative of with decency and good taste.
Multitel investors and stand as counsel for complainant.
Respondent even had the temerity to boast that no
She cannot be permitted to do both because that would
Multitel client had ever complained of respondent’s
amount to double-dealing and violate our ethical rules
unethical behavior.55 This remark indubitably displays
on conflict of interest.
respondent’s gross ignorance of disciplinary procedure
In Hornilla v. Atty. Salunat,51 we explained the concept in the Bar. As a member of the Bar, she is expected to
of conflict of interest, thus: know that proceedings for disciplinary actions against
any lawyer may be initiated and prosecuted by the IBP
There is conflict of interest when a lawyer represents Board of Governors, motu proprio or upon referral by
inconsistent interests of two or more opposing parties. this Court or by the Board of Officers of an IBP
The test is "whether or not in behalf of one client, it is Chapter56 even if no private individual files any
the lawyer’s duty to fight for an issue or claim, but it is administrative complaint.
his duty to oppose it for the other client. In brief, if he
argues for one client, this argument will be opposed by Upon review, we find no cogent reason to disturb the
him when he argues for the other client." This rule findings and recommendations of the IBP Investigating
covers not only cases in which confidential Commissioner, as adopted by the IBP Board of
Governors, on the admissibility of the electronic
evidence submitted by complainant. We, accordingly, ROSSANA A. APUYA, Complainant, v. ATTY. JOSE D.
adopt the same in toto. PAJARILLO, Respondent.
Finally, respondent argues that the recommendation of Before us is a verified complaint1 for disbarment against
the IBP Board of Governors to disbar her on the grounds respondent Atty. Jose D. Pajarillo for allegedly violating
of deceit, malpractice and other gross misconduct, aside Canon 15, Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional
from violation of the Lawyer’s Oath, has been rendered Responsibility which prohibits a lawyer from
moot and academic by voluntary termination of her IBP representing conflicting interests and Canon 15 of the
membership, allegedly after she had been placed under same Code which enjoins a lawyer to observe candor,
the Department of Justice’s Witness Protection fairness, and loyalty in all his dealings and transactions
Program.57 Convenient as it may be for respondent to with clients.
sever her membership in the integrated bar, this Court
cannot allow her to do so without resolving first this The salient facts of the case follow:
administrative case against her.
In 1995, the complainant, Mabini Colleges, Inc., had a
The resolution of the administrative case filed against
Board of Trustees which was divided into two opposing
respondent is necessary in order to determine the
factions. The first faction, called the Adeva Group, was
degree of her culpability and liability to complainant.
composed of Romulo M. Adeva, Lydia E. Cacawa,
The case may not be dismissed or rendered moot and
Eleodoro D. Bicierro, and Pilar I. Andrade. The other
academic by respondent’s act of voluntarily terminating
faction, called the Lukban Group, was composed of
her membership in the Bar regardless of the reason for
Justo B. Lukban, Luz I. Garcia, Alice I. Adeva, and Marcel
doing so. This is because membership in the Bar is a
N. Lukban.
privilege burdened with conditions.58 The conduct of a
lawyer may make him or her civilly, if not criminally,
In 1996, the complainant appointed the respondent as
liable to his client or to third parties, and such liability
its corporate secretary with a total monthly
may be conveniently avoided if this Court were to allow
compensation and honorarium of P6,000.
voluntary termination of membership. Hence, to
terminate one’s membership in the Bar voluntarily, it is
On March 29, 1999, the Adeva Group issued an
imperative that the lawyer first prove that the voluntary
unnumbered Board Resolution which authorized Pilar I.
withdrawal of membership is not a ploy to further
Andrade, the Executive Vice President and Treasurer of
prejudice the public or to evade liability. No such proof
the complainant at that time, and Lydia E. Cacawa, the
exists in the present case.
Vice President for Administration and Finance, to apply
WHEREFORE, respondent Attorney Maricel Pascual- for a loan with the Rural Bank of Paracale (RBP), Daet
Lopez is hereby DISBARRED for representing conflicting Branch, Camarines Norte in favor of the complainant.
interests and for engaging in unlawful, dishonest and
deceitful conduct in violation of her Lawyer’s Oath and On May 12, 1999, the Lukban Group sent a letter to RBP
the Code of Professional Responsibility. to oppose the loan application because the Adeva
Group appointed Librado Guerra and Cesar Echano,
Let a copy of this Decision be entered in the who were allegedly not registered as stockholders in
respondent’s record as a member of the Bar, and notice the Stock and Transfer Book of the complainant, as
of the same be served on the Integrated Bar of the members of the Board of Trustees. The Lukban Group
Philippines, and on the Office of the Court also alleged that the complainant was having financial
Administrator for circulation to all courts in the country. difficulties.
SO ORDERED.
On May 14, 1999, respondent sent a letter to RBP to
assure the latter of complainant's financial capacity to
pay the loan.
A.C. No. 10687, July 22, 2015
MABINI COLLEGES, INC. REPRESENTED BY MARCEL N. On July 13, 1999, RBP granted the loan application in
LUKBAN, ALBERTO I. GARCIA, JR., AND MA. PAMELA the amount of P200,000 which was secured by a Real
Estate Mortgage over the properties of the RBP and the complainant were public records. Thus,
complainant. respondent claimed that he could not have taken
advantage of his position as the mere corporate
On September 27, 1999, the Securities and Exchange secretary of the complainant.
Commission (SEC) issued an Order which nullified the
appointment of Librado Guerra and Cesar Echano by On February 14, 2013, the Investigating Commissioner
the Adeva Group as members of the Board of Trustees issued a Report and Recommendation2 finding
of the complainant. As a result, complainant sent a respondent guilty of representing conflicting interests
letter to RBP to inform the latter of the SEC Order. and recommending that respondent be suspended from
the practice of law for at least one year. The
On October 19, 1999, RBP sent a letter to the Investigating Commissioner noted that respondent
complainant acknowledging receipt of the SEC Order appeared for RBP in the case for annulment of
and informing the latter that the SEC Order was mortgage filed by his former client, the complainant
referred to RBP's legal counsel, herein respondent. The herein. The Investigating Commissioner cited cash
complainant alleged that it was only upon receipt of vouchers3 from 1994 to 2001 showing that respondent
such letter that it became aware that respondent is also was paid by complainant for his retained legal services.
the legal counsel of RBP. According to the Investigating Commissioner, these
vouchers debunk respondent's claim that the
On April 18, 2000, complainant and RBP increased the complainant merely appointed him as its corporate
loan to P400,000. secretary. The Investigating Commissioner also held
that the personality of complainant's representatives to
On April 23, 2002, RBP moved to foreclose the Real file this administrative case is immaterial since
Estate Mortgage. proceedings for disbarment, suspension or discipline of
attorneys may be taken by the Supreme Court motu
On May 28, 2002, complainant filed a complaint for proprio or by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)
Annulment of Mortgage with a Prayer for Preliminary upon the verified complaint of any person.
Injunction against RBP. Respondent entered his
appearance as counsel for RBP. On June 21, 2013, the Board of Governors of the IBP
issued Resolution No. XX-2013-7704 which affirmed the
On September 2, 2011, complainant filed the present findings of the Investigating Commissioner and imposed
complaint for disbarment against the respondent for a penalty of suspension from the practice of law for one
allegedly representing conflicting interests and for year against respondent.
failing to exhibit candor, fairness, and loyalty.
On May 3, 2014, the Board of Governors of the IBP
Respondent raised three defenses against the complaint issued Resolution No. XXI-2014-2905 which denied the
for disbarment. First, respondent argued that Marcel N. motion for reconsideration filed by respondent.
Lukban, Alberto I. Garcia Jr., and Ma. Pamela Rossana
Apuya cannot represent the complainant in this The issue in this case is whether respondent is guilty of
disbarment case because they were not duly authorized representing conflicting interests when he entered his
by the Board of Directors to file the complaint. Second, appearance as counsel for RBP in the case for
respondent claimed that he is not covered by the annulment of mortgage filed by complainant against
prohibition on conflict of interest which applies only to RBP.
the legal counsel of complainant. Respondent argued
that he merely served as the corporate secretary of We rule in the affirmative. We thus affirm the Report
complainant and did not serve as its legal counsel. and Recommendation of the Investigating
Third, respondent argued that there was no conflict of Commissioner, and Resolution Nos. XX-2013-770 and
interest when he represented RBP in the case for XXI-2014-290 of the IBP Board of Governors. Indeed,
annulment of mortgage because all the documents and respondent represented conflicting interests in violation
information related to the loan transaction between of Canon 15, Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility which provides that "[a] lawyer shall not interests is whether the acceptance of a new relation
represent conflicting interests except by written will prevent an attorney from the full discharge of his
consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty to his client or
the facts." invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double dealing in
the performance thereof.
This rule prohibits a lawyer from representing new
The rule prohibiting conflict of interest applies to
clients whose interests oppose those of a former client
situations wherein a lawyer would be representing a
in any manner, whether or not they are parties in the
client whose interest is directly adverse to any of his
same action or on totally unrelated cases.6 Based on the
present or former clients.10 It also applies when the
principles of public policy and good taste, this
lawyer represents a client against a former client in a
prohibition on representing conflicting interests enjoins
controversy that is related, directly or indirectly, to the
lawyers not only to keep inviolate the client's
subject matter of the previous litigation in which he
confidence, but also to avoid the appearance of
appeared for the former client.11 This rule applies
treachery and double-dealing for only then can litigants
regardless of the degree of adverse interests.12 What a
be encouraged to entrust their secrets to their lawyers,
lawyer owes his former client is to maintain inviolate
which is of paramount importance in the administration
the client's confidence or to refrain from doing anything
of justice.7 In Maturan v. Gonzales8 we further
which will injuriously affect him in any matter in which
explained the rationale for the prohibition:
he previously represented him.13 A lawyer may only be
The reason for the prohibition is found in the relation of allowed to represent a client involving the same or a
attorney and client, which is one of trust and substantially related matter that is materially adverse to
confidence of the highest degree. A lawyer becomes the former client only if the former client consents to it
familiar with all the facts connected with his client's after consultation.14chanrobleslaw
case. He learns from his client the weak points of the
action as well as the strong ones. Such knowledge must Applying the foregoing to the case at bar, we find that
be considered sacred and guarded with care. No respondent represented conflicting interests when he
opportunity must be given him to take advantage of the served as counsel for RBP in the case for annulment of
client's secrets. A lawyer must have the fullest mortgage filed by the complainant, respondent's former
confidence of his client. For if the confidence is abused, client, against RBP.
the profession will suffer by the loss thereof.
The finding of the Investigating Commissioner that
Meanwhile, in Hornilla v. Salunat,9 we explained the
respondent was compensated by complainant for his
test to determine the existence of conflict of interest:
retained legal services is supported by the evidence on
There is conflict of interest when a lawyer represents record, the cash vouchers from 1994 to 2001. Clearly,
inconsistent interests of two or more opposing parties. complainant was respondent's former client. And
The test is "whether or not in behalf of one client, it is respondent appeared as counsel of RBP in a case filed
the lawyer's duty to fight for an issue or claim, but it is by his former client against RBP. This makes respondent
his duty to oppose it for the other client. In brief, if he guilty of representing conflicting interests since
argues for one client, this argument will be opposed by respondent failed to show any written consent of all
him when he argues for the other client." This rule concerned (particularly the complainant) given after a
covers not only cases in which confidential full disclosure of the facts representing conflicting
communications have been confided, but also those in interests.15chanrobleslaw
which no confidence has been bestowed or will be
used. Also, there is conflict of interests if the acceptance We also note that the respondent acted for the
of the new retainer will require the attorney to perform complainant's interest on the loan transaction between
an act which will injuriously affect his first client in any RBP and the complainant when he sent a letter dated
matter in which he represents him and also whether he May 14, 1999 to RBP to assure the latter of the financial
will be called upon in his new relation to use against his capacity of the complainant to pay the loan. But as
first client any knowledge acquired through their counsel for RBP in the case for annulment of mortgage,
connection. Another test of the inconsistency of he clearly acted against the interest of the complainant,
his former client. interest which allows for a liberal rule on legal standing.
Under Section 1, Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court,
Contrary to the respondent's claim, it is of no moment "[proceedings for the disbarment, suspension or
that all the documents and information in connection discipline of attorneys may be taken by the Supreme
with the loan transaction between RBP and the Court motu proprio, or by the Integrated Bar of the
complainant were public records. In Hilado v. Philippines (IBP) upon the verified complaint
David,16 we laid down the following doctrinal of any person." Thus, in the present case, we find that
pronouncements: Marcel N. Lukban, Alberto I. Garcia Jr., and Ma. Pamela
Rossana A. Apuya can institute the complaint for
The principle which forbids an attorney who has been
disbarment even without authority from the Board of
engaged to represent a client from thereafter appearing
Directors of the complainant.
on behalf of the client's opponent applies equally even
though during the continuance of the employment
WHEREFORE, premises considered, Resolution No. XX-
nothing of a confidential nature was revealed to the
2013-770 and Resolution No. XXI-2014-290 of the IBP
attorney by the client. (Christian vs. Waialua
Board of Governors imposing a penalty of suspension
Agricultural Co., 30 Hawaii, 553, Footnote 7, C. J. S.,
from the practice of law for one year against
828.)
respondent Atty. Jose D. Pajarillo are hereby AFFIRMED.
Thus, the nature and extent of the information received On 24 October 1975, the Solicitor-General conducted a hearing where respondent took
by the lawyer from his client is irrelevant in determining the witness stand on his own behalf.
the existence of conflict of interest.
The record of the case shows the following background facts:
Finally, we agree with the Investigating Commissioner In an action for partition instituted by Generosa as compulsory heir of the deceased
that a complaint for disbarment is imbued with public Teofilo Buted, respondent was counsel for Luciana Abadilla and a certain Angela Buted.
Involved in said partition case was a parcel of land Identified as Lot 9439-B. Respondent In its Report and Recommendation dated 29 March 1990, the Solicitor General
ultimately succeeded in defending Luciana Abadilla's claim of exclusive ownership over recommends that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for three (3)
Lot 9439-B. When Luciana died, respondent withdrew his appearance from that months for violation of the Canons of Professional Ethics by representing clients with
partition case. conflicting interests, and filed before this Court the corresponding
Complaint 8
It appears that Luciana Abadilla sold the lot to Benito Bolisay and a new Transfer
dated 30 March 1990.
Certificate of Title over the lot was issued in the name of complainant spouses.
The issue raised in this proceeding is: whether or not
respondent Hernando had a conflict of interests under
the circumstances described above.
When an action for specific performance was lodged by a couple named Luis Sy and
At the hearing before the Office of the Solicitor General and in his Answer, respondent It is clear from the above-quoted portion of the Canons
Hernando admitted his involvement in the cadastral case as counsel for the Abadillas of Professional Ethics that in cases where a conflict of
but denied having seen or taken hold of the controversial Transfer Certificate of Title, interests may exist, full disclosure of the facts and
and having availed himself of any confidential information relating to Lot 9439-B. express consent of all the parties concerned are
necessary. 9 The present Code of Professional
Responsibility is stricter on this matter considering that
consent of the parties is now required to be in written
form. 10 In the case at bar, such consent was wanting.
Respondent persistently argues that contrary to the be held, the court should accept the attorney's
claims of complainant spouses, he had never seen nor inaccurate version of the facts that came to him.
taken hold of the Transfer Certificate of Title covering
Hence the necessity of setting down the existence of the
Lot No. 9439-B nor obtained any confidential
bare relationship of attorney and client as the yardstick
information in handling the action for specific
for testing incompatibility of interests. This stern rule is
performance. 11 The contention of respondent is, in
designed not alone to prevent the dishonest practitioner
effect, that because complainant has not clearly shown
from fraudulent conduct, but as well to protect the
that respondent had obtained any confidential
honest lawyer from unfounded suspicion of
information from Benito Bolisay while representing the
unprofessional practice. (Strong vs. Int. Bldg., etc.; Ass'n.
latter in the action for specific performance, respondent
183 III., 97; 47 L.R.A., 792) It is founded on principles of
cannot be penalized for representing conflicting
public policy, on good taste. As has been said another
interests. That is not the rule in this jurisdiction. The
case, the question is not necessarily one of the rights of
rule here is, rather, that the mere fact that respondent
the parties, but as to whether the attorney has adhered
had acted as counsel for Benito Bolisay in the action for
to proper professional standard. With these thoughts in
specific performance should have precluded respondent
mind, it behooves attorneys, like Caesar's wife, not
from acting or appearing as counsel for the other side in
only to keep inviolate the client's confidence, but also to
the subsequent petition for cancellation of the Transfer
avoid the appearance of treachery and double-
Certificate of Title of the spouses Generosa and Benito
dealing. Only thus can litigants be encouraged to
Bolisay. There is no necessity for proving the actual
entrust their secrets to their attorneys which is of
transmission of confidential information to an attorney
paramount importance in the administration of
in the course of his employment by his first client in
justice. 13 (Emphasis supplied)
order that he may be precluded from accepting
employment by the second or subsequent client where This Court went further in San Jose v. Cruz, 14
where the lawyer was
there are conflicting interests between the first and the charged with malpractice for having represented a new
subsequent clients. The reason for this rule was set out client whose interest was opposed to those of his
by the Court in Hilado v. David 12in the following terms: former clients in another case:
Communications between attorney and client are, in a The record shows that the respondent offered his
great number of litigations, a complicated affair, services to the Matienzo spouses knowing that the
consisting of entangled relevant and irrelevant, secret petitioner had obtained a favorable judgment in the
and well known facts. In the complexity of what is said civil case No. 5480 and that his efforts in the
in the course of the dealings between an attorney and a subsequent civil case No. 5952 would frustrate said
client, inquiry of the nature suggested would lead to the judgment and render it ineffectual, as has really been
revelation, in advance of the trial, of other matters that the result upon his obtaining the writ of injunction
might only further prejudice the complainant's cause. above-mentioned. Obviously his conduct is unbecoming
And the theory would be productive of other unsalutary to an attorney and cannot be sanctioned by the
results. To make the passing of confidential courts. An attorney owes loyalty to his client not only in
communication a condition precedent; i.e., to make the the case in which he has represented him but also after
employment conditioned on the scope and character of the relation of attorney and client has terminated and it
the knowledge acquired by an attorney in determining is not a good practice to permit him afterwards to
his right to change sides, would not enhance the defend in another case other persons against his former
freedom of litigants, which is to be sedulously fostered, client under the pretext that the case is distinct from,
to consult with lawyers upon what they believe are their and independent of the former case. 15 (Emphasis supplied)
rights in litigation. The condition would of necessity call
for an investigation of what information the attorney
has received and in what way it is or it is not in conflict The appropriate rule has been expressed by Justice Malcolm in the following manner:
anything which will injuriously affect the former client in any manner in which the
attorney formerly represented him, though the relation of attorney and client has
terminated, and the new employment is in a different case; nor can the attorney use
against his former client any knowledge or information gained through their former
The absence of monetary consideration does not exempt the lawyer from complying
with the prohibition against pursuing cases where a conflict of interest exists. The
The Court therefore agrees with the Solicitor-General that respondent Hernando is
ACCORDINGLY, the Court Resolved to SUSPEND Atty. Harold M. Hernando from the
practice of law for a period of five (5) months, with a WARNING that repetition of the
same or similar offense will warrant a more severe penalty. A copy of this Resolution
shall be furnished to all courts and to the Office of the Bar Confidant and spread on the