ATTY. POLICARIO I. CATALAN, JR.

,
vs.
ATTY. JOSELITO M. SILVOSA
A.C. No. 7360 July 24,2012
 PARTIES

Atty. Policarpio I. Catalan, Jr.

Complainant

Atty. Joselito M. Silvosa - Respondent

 FACTS
Atty. Catalan filed a complaint against Atty. Silvosa
which one of his cause of action was that Atty. Silvosa
appeared as counsel for the accused in the same
case for which he previously appeared as prosecutor.
Atty. Catalan filed a complaint against Atty. Silvosa
where he accused Atty. Silvosa of appearing as
private counsel in a case (Esperon case) where he
previously appeared as public prosecutor, hence
violating Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility

Atty. Catalan also alleged that Atty. Silvosa displayed

manifest bias in the accuseds favor due to their
relationship as relatives.
Atty. Silvosa caused numerous delays in the trial of
the Esperon case by arguing against the position of
the private prosecutor.

Atty. Silvosa was relieved from handling the Esperon

case.

Atty. Silvosa, as private lawyer and as counsel for the

accused, filed a motion to reinstate bail pending
finality of judgment of the Esperon case.
 Atty. Silvosas Defense
Atty. Silvosa states that he resigned as prosecutor
from the Esperon case 2002. The trial court released
its decision (Esperon case) on 2005 cancelled the
accuseds bail.

He claims that his appearance was only for the

purpose of the reinstatement of bail. He also denies
any relationship between himself and the accused.
 IBPs Recommendation

IBP Commissioner for Bar Discipline held Atty. Silvosa liable

for violating Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility and recommended the penalty of
reprimand.

But the Board of Governors of the IBP twice modified the

Commissioners recommendation: first, to a suspension of
six months, then to a suspension of two years.
 ISSUE
Whether Atty. Silvosa violated Rule 6.03 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility.
 HELD
YES. Atty. Silvosa violated Rule 6.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.

The Supreme Court upheld the recommendation of

the IBP in its decision.
Atty. Silvosa's attempt to minimize his role in said case
would be unavailing. The fact is that he is presumed to
have acquainted himself with the facts of the said case.
Such would constitute sufficient intervention in the case.

Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility

states "A lawyer shall not, after leaving government
service, accept engagement or employment in connection
with any matter in which he had intervened while in said
service."
Atty. Silvosa, relies on Rule 2.01 which provides that
"A lawyer shall not reject, except for valid reasons the
cause of the defenseless or the oppressed" and on
Canon 14 which provides that "A lawyer shall not
refuse his services to the needy."
But conveniently forgot Rule 15.03 which provides
that "A lawyer shall not represent conflicting
interests except by written consent of all concerned
given after a full disclosure of facts. when he
entered his appearance on the Motion to Post Bail
Bond Pending Appeal.
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Joselito M. Silvosa is
hereby DISBARRED and his name ORDERED
STRICKEN from the Roll of Attorneys.
GAMALIEL ABAQUETA vs. ATTY.
BERNARDITO A. FLORIDO
A.C. No. 5948 January 22, 2003
(Formerly A.M. No. CBD-354)
 PARTIES
Gamaliel Abaqueta - Complainant
Atty. Bernardito Florido - Respondent
Mrs. Milagros Yap-Abaqueta Complainants ex-wife,
petitioner in the 2nd case
Mrs. Charito Baclig - Complainants sister in-law and
attorney-in fact
 FACTS
Abaqueta filed an administrative complaint against
respondent Atty. Florido for conflict of interest with
the IBP.
 Abaquetas Contention

Abaqueta engaged the professional services of Atty.

Florido in a special proceeding entitled In the Matter
of the Intestate Estate of Deceased Bonifacia
Abaqueta Susana Uy Trazo (1st Case).

Atty. Florido was able to file Objections and

Comments to Inventory and Accounting, registering
complainants objection.
Milagros Yap-Abaqueta filed an action for sum of
money against complainant Abaqueta in a Case
entitled, Milagros-Yap Abaqueta vs Gafaliel
Abaqueta and Casiano Gerona (2nd Case).

Respondent Atty. Florido signed the complaint as

counsel for plaintiff Milagros Yap-Abaqueta, averring,
inter alia, that Plaintiff and defendant Gamaliel
Abaqueta are the conjugal owners of those certain
parcels of land.
However, the parcel of land referred to as conjugal
party of the complainant and Milagro Yap-Abaqueta
are the very same parcel of land in the 1st Case.

In short, respondent lawyer made allegations in the

2nd Case, which were contrary to and in direct
conflict with his averments as counsel for
complainant in the 1st case.
Complainant also averred that respondent Atty.
Florido admitted that he was never authorized to
appear as counsel for Milagro Yap-Abaqueta in the
2nd case.
 Atty. Floridos Defense

He always acted in good faith in his professional

relationship with Complainant in spite of the fact that
they have not personally met.

He based the matters he wrote in the complaint on

information and documents supplied by Mrs. Charito
Y. Baclig, indicating that he was sole and exclusive
owner of the properties.
Eight years later after the 1st Case was settled, and
the attorney-client relationship between complainant
and respondent lawyer was terminated, Mrs.
Milagros Abaqueta through Mrs. Baclig, engaged his
services to file the 2nd Case.
Mrs. Baclig presented to him a deed of absolute sale
showing that the properties subject hereof were not
complainants exclusive property but his conjugal
property with his wife, the same having been
acquired during the subsistence of their marriage.
Thus, in all good faith, respondent alleged in the
complaint that said properties were conjugal assets
of the spouses.
Atty. Florido further pointed out that his law firm
handles on the average eighty new Court Cases
annually.

And the absence of personal contact with

complainant and the lapse of eight years resulted in
the oversight and/or lapse of respondents memory
that complainant was a former client.
Furthermore, the caption of the Special Proceeding
(1st Case) was not in the name of complainant but
was entitled In the Matter of the Intestate Estate of
Bonifacia Payahay Abaqueta.

Respondent expressed regret over the oversight and

averred that immediately after discovering that he
formerly represented complainant in the 2nd case he
filed a motion to withdraw as counsel for plaintiff,
which was granted by the trial court.
 IBPs Recommendation

The investigating Commissioner found that

respondent clearly violated the prohibition against
representing conflicting interests and recommended
that he be suspended from the practice of law for a
period of three (3) months.
 ISSUE
Whether Atty. Florido violated Rule 15.03 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility by representing
Milagros Yap?
 HELD
YES. The Supreme Court find the recommendation
well-taken.

Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility

explicitly provides that
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.
The reasons explained by respondent are hardly
persuasive to excuse his clear representation of
conflicting interests in this case.

First, the investigating Commissioner observed that

the name Gamaliel Abaqueta is not a common
name. Once heard, it will surely ring a bell in ones
mind if he came across the name again.
Second, assuming that respondents memory was indeed
faulty, still it is incredible that he could not recall that
complainant was his client, considering that Mrs. Charito
Baclig, who was complainants attorney-in-fact and the go-
between of Complainant and respondent in the Bonifacia
Abaqueta case was the same person who brought Milagros
Yap-Abaqueta to him.

Even a person of average intelligence would have made the

connection between Mrs. Baclig and complainant under such
circumstances.
Lastly, the fact that the subject matter of the two cases is
the safe properties could not have escaped the attention of
respondent. There is a Conflict of interest if there is an
inconsistency in the interests of two or more opposing
parties.
It is axiomatic that no lawyer is obliged to act either
as adviser or advocate for every person who may
wish to become his client. He has the right to decline
such employment, subject to Canon 14 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility.
CANON 14 A lawyer shall not refuse his services to the
needy.
Once he agrees to take up the cause of the client, the
lawyer owes fidelity to such cause and must always
be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in
him.

He must serve the client with competence and

diligence and champion the latter's cause with
wholehearted fidelity, care and devotion.
A lawyer may not, without being guilty of professional
misconduct, act as counsel for a person whose interest
conflicts with that of his former client.

The reason for the prohibition is found in the relation of

attorney and client which is one of trust and confidence of
the highest degree.

The relation of attorney and client is based on trust, so that

double dealing, which could sometimes lead to treachery,
should be avoided.
WHEREFORE, Atty. Bernardito A. Florido is SUSPENDED from
the practice of law for three (3) months.

He is further ADMONISHED to exercise greater care and

diligence in the performance of his duties towards his clients
and the court. He is warned that a repetition of the same or
similar offense will be dealt with more severely.