MICHAEL RUBY vs. ATTY. ERLINDA B. ESPEJO and ATTY. RUDOLPH DILLA BAYOT, Respondents.A.C. Atty.
Atty. Bayot claimed that he is not the counsel of record of the complainant in the case before the RTC. He
No. 10558, February 23, 2015
Facts:The complainant alleged that he and his mother, Felicitas Ruby Bihla (Felicitas), engaged the services of
the respondents in connection with a case for cancellation and nullification of deeds of donation.
Pursuant to the retainer agreement2 dated August 29, 2009, the complainant and Felicitas would pay Atty.
Espejo the amount of P100,000.00 as acceptance fee
The complainant and Felicitas likewise agreed to pay the amount of P5,000.00 as appearance fee for every
hearing
On September 15, 2009, the complainant gave Atty. Espejo the amount of P50,000.00 as payment for filing fee.
However, the actual filing fee that was paid by her only amounted to 7,561.00; she failed to account for the
excess amount given her despite several demand letters therefor. Atty. Espejo allegedly asked the complainant
to give Atty. Bayot the amount of P30,000.00 – the remaining balance of the acceptance fee agreed. The
complainant asserted that the same was not yet due, but Atty. Espejo told him that Atty. Bayot was in dire need
of money. The complainant gave Atty. Bayot the amount of P8,000.00 supposedly as partial payment.
On September 25, 2009, Atty. Espejo called the complainant informing him of the need to file a separate petition
for the issuance of a TRO. She allegedly asked for P50,000.00 to be used as "representation fee."
On October 23, 2009, the complainant deposited the amount of P4,000.00 to the bank account of Atty. Bayot as
appearance fee for the hearing on the motion to serve summons through publications, however, Atty. Bayot
allegedly did not appear in court and instead met with the complainant at the lobby of the Quezon City Hall of
Justice, telling them that he already talked to the clerk of court who assured him that the court would grant their
motion
Thereafter, the complainant alleged, the respondents failed to update him as to the status of his complaint. He
further claimed that Atty. Bayot had suddenly denied that he was their counsel. Atty. Bayot asserted that it was
Atty. Espejo alone who was the counsel of the complainant and that he was merely a collaborating counsel.
This prompted the complainant to file an administrative case with the Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) of the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) against Atty. Espejo and Atty. Bayot.
Atty. Bayot claimed that he was not the counsel of the complainant; that he merely assisted him and Atty.
Espejo. He averred that Atty. Espejo, with the complainant’s consent, sought his help for the sole purpose of
drafting a complaint. He pointed out that it was Atty. Espejo who signed and filed the complaint in the RTC. He
further pointed out that he had no part in the retainer agreement that was entered into by the complainant,
Felicitas, and Atty. Espejo. As to the P12,000.00 that was given him, he claimed that he was entitled
to P4,000.00 thereof since the said amount was his appearance fee. On the other hand, the P8,000.00 was paid
to him as part of the acceptance fee. He denied requesting from the complainant the amount of P4,000.00 as
appearance fee, alleging that it was the latter who insisted on depositing the same in his bank account.
pointed out that he had no part in the retainer agreement entered into by the complainant and Atty. Espejo. Thus,
Atty. Bayot claimed, the complainant had no cause of action against him.
ISSUE:Whether or not a lawyer-client relationship exists between Atty. Bayot and the complainant?
RULING:YES.
It is undisputed that Atty. Espejo was the counsel of record in the case that was filed in the RTC. Equally
undisputed is the fact that it was only Atty. Espejo who signed the retainer agreement. However, the evidence on
record, including Atty. Bayot’s admissions, points to the conclusion that a lawyer-client relationship existed
between him and the complainant.
Atty. Bayot was the one who prepared the complaint that was filed with the RTC. He was likewise the one who
prepared the motion to serve summons through publication. He likewise appeared as counsel for the
complainant in the hearings of the case before the RTC. He likewise advised the complainant on the status of the
case.
More importantly, Atty. Bayot admitted that he received P8,000.00, which is part of the acceptance fee indicated
in the retainer agreement, from the complainant. It is true that it was Atty. Espejo who asked the complainant to
give Atty. Bayot the said amount. However, Atty. Bayot admitted that he accepted from the complainant the said
P8,000.00 without even explaining what the said amount was for.
The foregoing circumstances clearly established that a lawyer-client relationship existed between Atty. Bayot and
the complainant. "Documentary formalism is not an essential element in the employment of an attorney; the
contract may be express or implied. To establish the relation, it is sufficient that the advice and assistance of an
attorney is sought and received in any matter pertinent to his profession."28 Further, acceptance of money from
a client establishes an attorney-client relationship.29 Accordingly, as regards the case before the RTC, the
complainant had two counsels – Atty. Espejo and Atty. Bayot.
Accordingly, Atty. Bayot owes fidelity to the cause of the complainant and is obliged to keep the latter informed of
the status of his case. He is likewise bound to account for all money or property collected or received from the
complainant. He may be held administratively liable for any inaptitude or negligence he may have had committed
in his dealing with the complainant.
A.C. No. 9395 November 12, 2014
DARIA O. DAGING, Complainant, vs.ATTY. RIZ TINGALON L. DAVIS, Respondent.
FactsComplainant Daria O. Daging (Daging)was the owner and operator of Nashville Country Music Lounge.
She leased from Benjie Pinlac (Pinlac) a building space located at No. 22 Otek St., Baguio City where she
operated the bar.
Complainant received a Retainer Proposalfrom Davis &Sabling Law Office signed by respondent Atty.
RizTingalon L. Davis (Atty. Davis) and his partner Atty. Amos SaganibSabling (Atty. Sabling), which eventually
resulted in a Retainer Agreement signed by both parties.
Because Dagingwas delinquent in paying the monthly rentals, Pinlac terminated the lease. Pinlac and
NovieBalageo (Balageo) inventoried all equipment and took over the operation of the bar under the name,
Amarillo Music Bar.
Daging alleged that she filed an ejectment case against Pinlac and Balageo before (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, Atty. Davis appeared as counsel for Balageo in that ejectment case and filed,
on behalf of the latter, an Answer with Opposition to the Prayer for the Issuance of a Writ of Preliminary
Injunction.
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 oflaw for a
period of one year.
The IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating
Commissioner, and reduced suspension to 6 months upon motion of complainant.
Issue:Whether or not respondent should be suspended in the practice of law for representing conflicting
interests.
Ruling:Yes.
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.
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.
The Court affirms and adopts the IBP Board of Governors Resolution.
EN BANC
A.C. No. 6664 July 16, 2013
FERDINAND A. SAMSON, Complainant, vs.
ATTY. EDGARDO O. ERA, Respondent.
The complainant and his relatives were among the investors who fell prey to the pyramiding scam perpetrated by
ICS Corporation led by Emilia Sison and several others. They engaged the services of Atty. Era to represent and
assist him and his relatives in the prosecution of criminal case against Sison and her group.
Pursuant to the engagement, Atty. Era prepared the demand letter demanding the return or refund of the money
subject of their complaints. He also prepared the complaint-affidavit that Samson signed and swore to and
subsequently presented to the Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City (OCPQC). After the preliminary
investigation, the OCPQC formally charged Sison and the others with several counts of estafa in the Regional
Trial Court, Branch 96 (RTC), in Quezon City.
In April 2003, Atty. Era called a meeting with Samson and his relatives to discuss the possibility of an amicable
settlement with Sison and her cohorts. He told Samson and the others that undergoing a trial of the cases would
just be a waste of time, money and effort for 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 belonging to ICS
Corporation in exchange for their desistance. They acceded and executed the affidavit of desistance he
prepared, and in turn they received a deed of assignment covering land registered under Transfer Certificate of
Title No. R-4475 executed by Sison in behalf of ICS Corporation.
After an amicable settlement and several negotiations with Sison and her cohorts, Atty. Era expressedthat he
already accomplished his professional responsibility towards Samson. They also later found outthat they could
not liquidate the property subject to the amicable settlement.During the hearings in the RTC, Atty. Era did not
anymore appear for Samson and his group. They foundout that Atty. Era had already been entering his
appearance as the counsel for Sison in her othercriminal cases involving the same pyramiding scam.
On January 20, 2005, Samson executed an affidavit alleging the foregoing antecedents and prayed for Atty.
Era’s disbarment on the ground of his violation of the trust, confidence and respect reposed in him as their
counsel.
Atty. Era was required to file his Comment. After several extensions, Atty. Era finally filed his Comment on April
11, 2006 in the OBC. He alleged that the lawyer-client relationship ended when Samson and his group
entered into the compromise settlement.
The case was referred to IBP for investigation, report and recommendation.
IBP Recommendation: the Investigating Commissioner found Atty. Era guilty of misconduct for representing
conflicting interests, failing to serve his client with competence and diligence and champion the latter’s cause
with wholehearted fidelity, care and devotion – suspended from the practice of law for 6 months
IBP Board of Governors: adopted and approved the IBP recommendation with modification that Atty. Era be
suspended from the practice of law for 2 years.
Issue:Whether or not Atty. Era violated the Code of Professional Responsibility on conflict of interests.
Ruling.YES. The Supreme Court affirmed the findings of the IBP.
The lawyer-client relationship did not terminate when the parties entered into a compromise settlement, for the
fact remained that he still needed to oversee the implementation of the settlement as well as to proceed with the
criminal cases until they were dismissed or otherwise concluded by the trial court. It is also relevant to indicate
that the execution of a compromise settlement in the criminal cases did not ipso facto cause the termination of
the cases not only because the approval of the compromise by the trial court was still required, but also because
the compromise would have applied only to the civil aspect, and excluded the criminal aspect pursuant to Article
2034 of the Civil Code.
Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that: "A lawyer shall not represent
conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts." Atty. Era
thus owed to Samson and his group entire devotion to their genuine interest, and warm zeal in the maintenance
and defense of their rights.He was expected to exert his best efforts and ability to preserve the clients’ cause, for
the unwavering loyalty displayed to his clients likewise served the ends of justice.
Contrary to Atty. Era’s ill-conceived attempt to explain 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 with that
of the former client. The spirit behind this rule is that the client’s confidence once given should not be stripped by
the mere expiration of the professional employment. Even after the severance of the relation, a lawyer should not
do anything that will injuriously affect his former client in any matter in which the lawyer previously represented
the client. Nor should the lawyer disclose or use any of the client’s confidences acquired in the previous relation.
In this regard, Canon 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility expressly declares that: "A lawyer owes
fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him."
The lawyer’s highest and most unquestioned duty is to protect the client at all hazards and costs even to
himself. The protection given to the client is perpetual and does not cease with the termination of the litigation,
nor is it affected by the client’s ceasing to employ the attorney and retaining another, or by any other change of
relation between them. It even survives the death of the client.
In the absence of the express consent from Samson and his group after full disclosure to them of the conflict of
interest, therefore, the most ethical thing for Atty. Era to have done was either to outrightly decline representing
and entering his appearance as counsel for Sison, or to advice Sison to engage another lawyer for herself.
Unfortunately, he did neither, and should now suffer the proper sanction.
WHEREFORE, the Court FINDS and PRONOUNCES Atty. EDGARDO O. ERA guilty of violating Rule 15.03 of
Canon 15, and Canon 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility; and SUSPENDS him from the practice of
law for two years effective upon his receipt of this decision, with a warning that his commission of a similar
offense will be dealt with more severely.
NOTES:
Prohibition against conflict of interest rests on 5 rationales, rendered as follows:
1st : the law seeks to assure clients that their lawyers will represent them with undivided loyalty
2nd : the prohibition against conflicts of interest seeks to enhance the effectiveness of legal representation
3rd : a client has a legal right to have the lawyer safeguard the client’s confidential information
4th : conflicts rules help ensure that lawyers will not exploit clients, such as by inducing a client to make a gift to
the lawyer
5th : some conflict-of-interest rules protect interests of the legal system in obtaining adequate presentations to
tribunals.
Reason: the rule is grounded in the fiduciary obligation of loyalty. The nature of their relationship is, therefore,
one of trust and confidence of the highest degree.
A.C. No. 9537 June 10, 2013
(Formerly CBD Case No. 09-2489)
DR. TERESITA LEE, Complainant, vs. ATTY. AMADOR L. SIMANDO, Respondent.
FACTS:
Atty. Simando was the retained counsel of complainant Dr. Lee. Atty. Simando went to see Dr. Lee and asked if
the latter could help a certain Felicito M. Mejorado (Mejorado) for his needed funds. Mejorado was Atty.
Simando’s client in a case claiming rewards against the Bureau of Customs. Dr. Lee initially refused to lend
money but Atty. Simando persisted and assured her that Mejorado will pay his obligation. He even offered to be
the co-maker of Mejorado and assured her that Mejorado's obligation will be paid when due. Due to Atty.
Simando's persistence, his daily calls and frequent visits to convince Dr. Lee, the latter gave in to her lawyer's
demands, and finally agreed to give Mejorado sizeable amounts of money. When the said obligation became
due, despite Dr. Lee's repeated demands, Mejorado failed and refused to comply with his obligation. Since Atty.
Simando was still her lawyer then, Dr. Lee instructed him to initiate legal action against Mejorado. Atty. Simando
said he would get in touch with Mejorado and ask him to pay his obligation without having to resort to legal
action. However, even after several months, Mejorado still failed to pay Dr. Lee, so she again asked Atty.
Simando why no payment has been made yet. Dr. Lee then reminded Atty. Simando that he was supposed to be
the co-maker of the obligation of Mejorado, to which he replied: "Di kasuhan din ninyo ako!" Despite
complainant's repeated requests, respondent ignored her and failed to bring legal actions against Mejorado.
Thus, complainant was forced to terminate her contract with Atty. Simando and demand payment from him as
well.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Respondent is guilty of representing conflicting interest.
HELD:
Guilty. 6-month Suspension. Clearly, it is improper for respondent to appear as counsel for one party
(complainant as creditor) against the adverse party (Mejorado as debtor) who is also his client, since a lawyer is
prohibited from representing conflicting interests. He may not, without being guilty of professional misconduct,
act as counsel for a person whose interest conflict with that of his present or former client. Respondent's
assertion that there is no conflict of interest because complainant and respondent are his clients in unrelated
cases fails to convince. His representation of opposing clients in both cases, though unrelated, obviously
constitutes conflict of interest or, at the least, invites suspicion of double-dealing. Moreover, with the subject loan
agreement entered into by the complainant and Mejorado, who are both his clients, readily shows an apparent
conflict of interest, moreso when he signed as co-maker
Case Digest: Wilfredo Anglo, Complainant, v. Atty. Jose Ma. V. Valencia, Atty. Jose Ma. J. Ciocon, Atty. Philip Z.
Dabao, Atty. Lily Uyv Alencia, Atty. Joey P. De La Paz, Atty. Cris G. Dionela, Atty. Raymundo T. Pandan, Jr.,
Atty. Rodney K. Rubica, and Atty. Wilfred Ramon M. Penalosa, Respondents | A.C. No. 10567, 25 February
2015
January 15, 2018
Wilfredo Anglo, Complainant, v. Atty. Jose Ma. V. Valencia, Atty. Jose Ma. J. Ciocon, Atty. Philip Z. Dabao, Atty.
Lily Uyv Alencia, Atty. Joey P. De La Paz, Atty. Cris G. Dionela, Atty. Raymundo T. Pandan, Jr., Atty. Rodney K.
Rubica, and Atty. Wilfred Ramon M. Penalosa, Respondents.
A.C. No. 10567, 25 February 2015
Facts: Complainant alleged that he availed the services of the law firm of the respondents for labor cases. Atty.
Dionela, a partner of the law firm, was assigned to represent the complainant. The labor cases were terminated
upon the agreement of both parties. A criminal case for qualified theft was filed against the complainant and his
wife by FEVE Farms, represented by the law which handled the complainant’s labor cases. Aggrieved.
Complainant filed disbarment case against the respondents, alleging that they violated the rule on conflict of
interest.
IBP Commissioner found the respondents to have violated the rule on conflict of interest and recommended
that the respondents be reprimanded.
Issue: Whether or not the respondents are guilty of representing conflicting interests in violation of the pertinent
provisions of Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).
Held: There is conflict of interest when a lawyer represents inconsistent interests of two or more opposing
parties. The Supreme Court found the respondents guilty of representing conflicting interests in violation of Rule
15.03, Canon 15 and Canon 21 of the CPR and are therefore Reprimanded for said violations, with a Stern
Warning that a repetition of the same or similar infraction would be dealt with more severely. Meanwhile, the
case against Atty. Philip Dabao is Dismissed in view of his death.
DECISION
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
This is an administrative case stemming from a complaint-affidavit1 dated December 4, 2009 filed by complainant
Wilfredo Anglo (complainant) charging respondents Attys. Jose Ma. V. Valencia (Atty. Valencia), Jose Ma. J.
Ciocon (Atty. Ciocon ), Philip Z. Dabao (Atty. Dabao ), Lily Uy-Valencia (Atty. Uy-Valencia), Joey P. De La Paz
(Atty. De La Paz), Cris G. Dionela (Atty. Dionela), Raymundo T. Pandan, Jr. (Atty. Pandan, Jr.), Rodney K.
Rubica (Atty. Rubica), and Wilfred Ramon M. Penalosa (Atty. Penalosa; collectively, respondents) of violating the
Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR), specifica1ly the rule against conflict of interest.
The Facts
In his complaint-affidavit, complainant alleged that he availed the services of the law firm Valencia Ciocon Dabao
Valencia De La Paz Dionela Pandan Rubica Law Office(law firm), of which Attys. Valencia, Ciocon, Dabao, Uy-
Valencia, De La Paz, Dionela, Pandan, Jr., and Rubica were partners, for two (2) consolidated labor
cases2 where he was impleaded as respondent. Atty. Dionela, a partner of the law firm, was assigned to
represent complainant. The labor cases were terminated on June 5, 2008 upon the agreement of both parties. 3
On September 18, 2009, a criminal case4 for qualified theft was filed against complainant and his wife by FEVE
Farms Agricultural Corporation (FEVE Farms) acting through a certain Michael Villacorta (Villacorta). Villacorta,
however, was represented by the law firm, the same law office which handled complainant’s labor cases.
Aggrieved, complainant filed this disbarment case against respondents, alleging that they violated Rule 15.03,
Canon 15 and Canon 21 of the CPR,5 to wit:
CANON 15 – A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND LOYALTY IN ALL HIS DEALINGS
AND TRANSACTIONS WITH HIS CLIENTS.
xxxx
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.
xxxx
CANON 21 – A LAWYER SHALL PRESERVE THE CONFIDENCES AND SECRETS OF HIS CLIENT EVEN
AFTER THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATION IS TERMINATED.
In their defense,6 respondents admitted that they indeed operated under the name Valencia Ciocon Dabao
Valencia De La Paz Dionela Pandan Rubica Law Office, but explained that their association is not a formal
partnership, but one that is subject to certain "arrangements." According to them, each lawyer contributes a fixed
amount every month for the maintenance of the entire office; and expenses for cases, such as transportation,
copying, printing, mailing, and the like are shouldered by each lawyer separately, allowing each lawyer to fix and
receive his own professional fees exclusively.7 As such, the lawyers do not discuss their clientele with the other
lawyers and associates, unless they agree that a case be handled collaboratively. Respondents claim that this
has been the practice of the law firm since its inception. They averred that complainant’s labor cases were solely
and exclusively handled by Atty. Dionela and not by the entire law firm. Moreover, respondents asserted that the
qualified theft case filed by FEVE Farms was handled by Atty. Peñalosa, a new associate who had no knowledge
of complainant’s labor cases, as he started working for the firm after the termination thereof.8 Meanwhile, Atty.
Dionela confirmed that he indeed handled complainant’s labor cases but averred that it was terminated on June
13, 2008,9 and that complainant did not have any monthly retainer contract. 10 He likewise explained that he did
not see the need to discuss complainant’s labor cases with the other lawyers as the issue involved was very
simple,11 and that the latter did not confide any secret during the time the labor cases were pending that would
have been used in the criminal case with FEVE Farms. He also claimed that the other lawyers were not aware of
the details of complainant’s labor cases nor did they know that he was the handling counsel for complainant even
after the said cases were closed and terminated.12 The IBP’s Report and Recommendation
In a Report and Recommendation13 dated September 26, 2011, the IBP Commissioner found respondents to
have violated the rule on conflict of interest and recommended that they be reprimandedtherefor, with the
exception of Atty. Dabao, who had died on January 17, 2010.14 The IBP found that complainant was indeed
represented in the labor cases by the respondents acting together as a law firm and not solely by Atty. Dionela.
Consequently, there was a conflict of interest in this case, as respondents, through Atty. Peñalosa, having been
retained by FEVE Farms, created a connection that would injure complainant in the qualified theft case.
Moreover, the termination of attorney-client relation provides no justification for a lawyer to represent an interest
adverse to or in conflict with that of the former client. 15
In a Resolution16 dated February 12, 2013, the IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the IBP
Commissioner’s Report and Recommendation with modification. Instead of the penalty of reprimand, the IBP
Board of Governors dismissed the case with warning that a repetition of the same or similar act shall be dealt
with more severely.
Complainant filed a motion for reconsideration17 thereof, which the IBP Board of Governors granted in its
Resolution18 dated March 23, 2014 and thereby (a) set aside its February 12, 2013 Resolution and (b) adopted
and approved the IBP Commissioner’s Report and Recommendation, with modification, (1) reprimanding the
respondents for violation of the rule on conflict of interest; (2) dismissing the case against Atty. Dabao in view of
his death; and (3) suspending Atty. Dionela from the practice of law for one year, being the handling counsel of
complainant’s labor cases.
The Issue Before the Court
The essential issue in this case is whether or not respondents are guilty of representing conflicting interests in
violation of the pertinent provisions of the CPR.
The Court’s Ruling
Rule 15.03, Canon 15 and Canon 21 of the CPR provide:
CANON 15 – A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND LOYALTY IN ALL HIS DEALINGS
AND TRANSACTIONS WITH HIS CLIENTS.
xxxx
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.
xxxx
CANON 21 – A LAWYER SHALL PRESERVE THE CONFIDENCES AND SECRETS OF HIS CLIENT EVEN
AFTER THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP IS TERMINATED.
In Hornilla v. Atty. Salunat,19 the Court explained the concept of conflict of interest in this wise:
There is conflict of interest when a lawyer represents inconsistent interests of two or more opposing
parties.1âwphi1 The test is "whether or not in behalf of one client, it is 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 argues for one client, this argument will be
opposed by him when he argues for the other client." This rule covers not only cases in which confidential
communications have been confided, but also those in which no confidence has been bestowed or will be used.
Also, there is conflict of interests if the acceptance of the new retainer will require the attorney to perform an act
which will injuriously affect his first client in any matter in which he represents him and also whether he will be
called upon in his new relation to use against his first client any knowledge acquired through their connection.
Another test of the inconsistency of interests is whether the acceptance of a new relation will prevent an attorney
from the full discharge of his duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty to his client or invite suspicion of unfaithfulness
or double dealing in the performance thereof.20
As such, a lawyer is prohibited from representing new clients whose interests oppose those of a former client in
any manner, whether or not they are parties in the same action or on totally unrelated cases. The prohibition is
founded on the principles of public policy and good taste. 21 In this case, the Court concurs with the IBP’s
conclusions that respondents represented conflicting interests and must therefore be held liable. As the records
bear out, respondents’ law firm was engaged and, thus, represented complainant in the labor cases instituted
against him. However, after the termination thereof, the law firm agreed to represent a new client, FEVE Farms,
in the filing of a criminal case for qualified theft against complainant, its former client, and his wife. As the Court
observes, the law firm’s unethical acceptance of the criminal case arose from its failure to organize and
implement a system by which it would have been able to keep track of all cases assigned to its handling lawyers
to the end of, among others, ensuring that every engagement it accepts stands clear of any potential conflict of
interest. As an organization of individual lawyers which, albeit engaged as a collective, assigns legal work to a
corresponding handling lawyer, it behooves the law firm to value coordination in deference to the conflict of
interest rule. This lack of coordination, as respondents’ law firm exhibited in this case, intolerably renders its
clients’ secrets vulnerable to undue and even adverse exposure, eroding in the balance the lawyer-client
relationship’s primordial ideal of unimpaired trust and confidence. Had such system been institutionalized, all of
its members, Atty. Dionela included, would have been wary of the above-mentioned conflict, thereby impelling
the firm to decline FEVE Farms’ subsequent engagement. Thus, for this shortcoming, herein respondents, as the
charged members of the law firm, ought to be administratively sanctioned. Note that the Court finds no sufficient
reason as to why Atty. Dionela should suffer the greater penalty of suspension. As the Court sees it, all
respondents stand in equal fault for the law firm’s deficient organization for which Rule 15.03, Canon 15 and
Canon 21 of the CPR had been violated. As such, all of them are meted with the same penalty of reprimand, with
a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar infraction would be dealt with more severely.
As a final point, the Court clarifies that respondents' pronounced liability is not altered by the fact that the labor
cases against complainant had long been terminated. Verily, the termination of attorney-client relation provides
no justification for a lawyer to represent an interest adverse to or in conflict with that of the former client. The
client's confidence once reposed should not be divested by mere expiration of professional employment. 22
WHEREFORE, respondents Attys. Jose Ma. V. Valencia, Jose Ma. J. Ciocon, Lily Uy-Valencia, Joey P. De La
Paz, Cris G. Dionela, Raymundo T. Pandan, Jr., Rodney K. Rubica, and Wilfred Ramon M. Penalosa are found
GUILTY of representing conflicting interests in violation of Rule 15.03, Canon 15 and Canon 21 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility and are therefore REPRIMANDED for said violations, with a STERN WARNING that
a repetition of the same or similar infraction would be dealt with more severely. Meanwhile, the case against Atty.
Philip Dabao is DISMISSED in view of his death.
Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant, to be appended to respondents'
personal records as attorneys. Further, let copies of this Resolution be furnished the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines and the Office of the Court Administrator, which is directed to circulate them to all courts in the
country for their information and guidance.SO ORDERED.