Solatan v Inocentes
FACTS
Atty. Jose A. Camano was an associate in the firm of Atty.
Oscar Inocentes. The Oscar Inocentes and Associates Law
Office was retained by spouses Genito, owners of an
apartment complex when the Genito Apartments were
placed under sequestration by the PCGG. They represented
the spouses Genito before the PCGG and the Sandiganbayan
and in ejectment cases against non-paying tenants
occupying the Genito Apartments. - Complainant‘s sister
was a tenant of the Genito Apartments. It appears that she
left for the States and her apartment was used by members
of her family.
A complaint for ejectment for non-payment of rentals was
filed against her and a decision was rendered in a judgment
by default ordering her to vacate the premises. -
Complainant was occupying said apartment when he
learned of the judgment. He informed Atty. Inocentes of his
desire to arrange the execution of a new lease contract by
virtue of which he would be the new lessee of the
apartment.
Atty. Inocentes referred him to Atty. Camano, the attorney
in charge of ejectment cases against tenants of the Genito
Apartments. During the meeting with Atty. Camano, an
verbal agreement was made in which complainant agreed to
pay the entire judgment debt of his sister, including awarded
attorney‘s fees and costs of suit. Complainant issued a check
in the name of Atty. Camano representing half of the
attorney‘s fees. - Complainant failed to make any other
payment. The sheriff in coordination with Atty. Camano
enforced the writ of execution and levied the properties
found in the subject apartment. C
omplainant renegotiated and Atty. Camano agreed to
release the levied properties and allow complainant to
remain at the apartment. Acting on Atty. Camano‘s advice,
complainant presented an affidavit of ownership to the
sheriff who released the levied items. However, a gas stove
was not returned to the complainant but was kept by Atty.
Camano in the unit of the Genito Apartments where he was
temporarily staying. - complainant filed the instant
administrative case for disbarment against Atty. Camano
and Atty. Inocentes. The IBP Board of Governors resolved to
suspend Atty. Camano from the practice of law for 1 year
and to reprimand Atty. Inocentes for exercising command
responsibility
ISSUE
WON Atty. Camano violated the Code of Professional
Responsibility 2. WON Atty. Inocentes violated the Code of
Professional Responsibility
RULING
YES. (Camano) An attorney has no right to act as counsel or
legal representative for a person without being retained. No
employment relation was offered or accepted in the instant
case. Reasoning Canon 15 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility requires all lawyers to observe loyalty in all
transactions and dealings with their clients.
Unquestionably, an attorney giving legal advice to a party
with an interest conflicting with that of his client may be
held guilty of disloyalty. However, the advice given by Atty.
Camano in the context where the complainant was the
rightful owner of the incorrectly levied properties was in
consonance with his duty as an officer of the court. It should
not be construed as being in conflict with the interest of the
spouses Genito as they have no interest over the properties.
The act of informing complainant that his properties would
be returned upon showing proof of his ownership may hint
at infidelity to his clients but lacks the essence of double
dealing and betrayal.
YES. (Inocentes) His failure to exercise certain
responsibilities over matters under the charge of his law firm
is a blameworthy shortcoming. As name practitioner of the
law office, Atty. Inocentes is tasked with the responsibility to
make reasonable efforts to ensure that all lawyers in the
firm should act in conformity to the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
Reasoning Atty. Inocentes received periodic reports from
Atty. Camano on the latter‘s dealings with complainant. This
is the linchpin of his supervisory capacity over Atty. Camano
and liability by virtue thereof. Partners and practitioners
who hold supervisory capacities are legally responsible to
exert ordinary diligence in apprising themselves of the
comings and goings of the cases handled by persons over
which they are exercising supervisory authority and in
exerting necessary efforts to foreclose violations of the Code
of Professional Responsibility by persons under their charge.
Disposition Petition granted. Sanction on Atty. Camano is
affirmed. Atty. Inocentes is admonished with the warning
that repetition of the same or similar omission will be dealt
with more severely.
1. Received money for AF
2. Gave unsolicited advice
3. Didn’t return northern hill oven
Daging v Davis
FACTS
This administrative complaint for disbarment arose from an
Affidavit Complaint1 filed by Daria O. Daging (complainant)
before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), Benguet
Chapter,2 against Atty. Riz Tingalon L. Davis (respondent).
Complainant was the owner and operator of Nashville
Country Music Lounge. She leased it from Benjie Pinlac
(Pinlac).

Meanwhile, complainant received a Retainer Proposal from
Davis & Sabling Law Office signed by respondent and his
partner Atty. Amos Saganib Sabling (Atty. Sabling) and
eventually resulted in the signing by the complainant.
Complainant was delinquent in paying the monthly rentals,
Pinlac terminated the lease. Together with Novie Balageo
(Balageo) and respondent, Pinlac went to complainant's
music bar, inventoried all the equipment therein, and
informed her that Balageo would take over the operation of
the bar. Complainant averred that subsequently respondent
acted as business partner of Balageo in operating the bar
under her business name, which they later renamed
Amarillo Music Bar.
Complainant alleged that she filed an ejectment case against
Pinlac and Balageo before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities
(MTCC), Branch 1, Baguio City. At that time, Davis & Sabling
Law Office was still her counsel as their Retainer Agreement
remained subsisting and in force. However, respondent
appeared as counsel for Balageo in that ejectment case
In his Comment, respondent denied participation in the
takeover or acting as a business partner of Balageo in the
operation of the bar. He asserted that Balageo is the sole
proprietress of the establishment. He insisted that it was
Atty. Sabling, his partner, who initiated the proposal and was
in fact the one who was able to convince complainant to
accept the law office as her retainer.
Respondent maintained that he never obtained any
knowledge or information regarding the business of
complainant who used to consult only Atty. Sabling.
Respondent admitted though having represented Balageo in
the ejectment case, but denied that he took advantage of
the Retainer Agreement between complainant and Davis
and Sabling Law Office.
The Investigating Commissioner rendered a Report and
Recommendation finding respondent guilty of betrayal of his
client's trust and for misuse of information obtained from
his client to the disadvantage of the latter and to the
advantage of another person. He recommended that
respondent be suspended from the practice o flaw for a
period of one year.
ISSUE
WON respondent violated the Canon upon appearing as
lawyer in the ejectment case?
RULING
Based on the established facts, it is indubitable that
respondent transgressed Rule 15.03 of Canon 15 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility. It provides:
Rule 15.03 -A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests
except by written consent of all concerned given after a full
disclosure of the facts.
"A lawyer may not, without being guilty of professional
misconduct, act as counsel for a person whose interest
conflicts with that of his present or former client." The
prohibition against representing conflicting interests is
absolute and the rule applies even if the lawyer has acted in
good faith and with no intention to represent conflicting
interests.
In Quiambao v. Atty. Bamba, this Court emphasized that
lawyers are expected not only to keep inviolate the client's
confidence, but also to avoid the appearance of treachery
and double-dealing for only then can litigants be encouraged
to entrust their secrets to their lawyers, which is of
paramount importance in the administration of justice.
Respondent argues that while complainant is a client of
Davis & Sabling Law office, her case is actually handled only
by his partner Atty. Sabling. He was not privy to any
transaction between Atty. Sabling and complainant and has
no knowledge of any information or legal matter
complainant entrusted or confided to his law partner. He
thus inveigles that he could not have taken advantage of
information obtained by his law firm by virtue of the
Retainer Agreement. We are not impressed.
In Hilado v. David, reiterated in Gonzales v. Atty. Cabucana,
Jr.,this Court held that a lawyer who takes up the cause of
the adversary of the party who has engaged the services of
his law firm brings the law profession into public disrepute
and suspicion and undermines the integrity of justice.
Thus, respondent's argument that he never took advantage
of any information acquired by his law firm in the course of
its professional dealings with the complainant, even
assuming it to be true, is of no moment. Undeniably aware
of the fact that complainant is a client of his law firm,
respondent should have immediately informed both the
complainant and Balageo that he, as well as the other
members of his law firm, cannot represent any of them in
their legal tussle; otherwise, they would be representing
conflicting interests and violate the Code of Professional
Responsibility. Indeed, respondent could have simply
advised both complainant and Balageo to instead engage
the services of another lawyer.