Josefina Aninon vs. Aty. Clemencio Sabitsana Jr.

A.C. No. 5098 April 11, 2012 Brion, J.

Doctrine: Proscription against representation of conflicting interests applies to situations where

the opposing parties are present clients in the same action or in an unrelated action. There is
prohibition even if the lawyer is not called upon to contend for one client or that there would be
no occasion to use the confidential information acquired from one to the disadvantage of the
other. It is enough that the opposing parties in one case are present clients and the nature or
conditions of the lawyers respective retainers with each of them would affect the performance of
undivided fidelity to both clients.

Facts:
● Complaint for disbarment
● Complainant Josefine Aninon previously engaged the service of Atty. Sabitsana for the
preparation and execution in her favor a Deed of Sale over the parcel of land of her
common law husband, Brigido Caneja Jr.
● Atty. Sabitsana later filed a civil case against Aninon for the annulment of sale on behalf
of Zenaida Caete, legal wife of Canjea.
● Allegation of Aninon: Atty. Sabitsana violated her confidence when he filed a case
representing Caete. Accused Sabitsana that he used the confidential information obtained
from her in filing the civil case
● Answer of Sabitsana: admitted that he prepared and executed a deed of sale but denied
having received any confidential information. Alleged that the disbarment complaint was
initiated by another Atty who lost a case against him.
● IBP:
○ Guilty for representing interests. Recommended suspension for one year.
○ Lawyer may not handle a case to nullify a contract he prepared and take up
inconsistent positions. He has the duty to decline his current employment with
Caete. A lawyer may not represent conflicting interests in the absence of the
written consent of all parties.
○ There is obviously a conflict of interest because the complainant and Caneja are
claimants to the same property. There is said to be inconsistency of interest when
on behalf of one client, it is the attorney’s duty to contend for that which his duty
to another client requires him to oppose.
● IBP Board of Governors: same as above

Issue: W/N Atty. Sabitsana is guilty of misconduct for representing conflicting interests

Decision: GUILTY. Suspension of 1 year

Held:
● YES. Part of the lawyer’s duty is to avoid representing conflicting interests as provided in
Canon 15.3 “ A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent
of all concerned given after full disclosure of the facts”. Proscription against
representation of conflicting interests applies to situations where the opposing
parties are present clients in the same action or in an unrelated action. There is
prohibition even if the lawyer is not called upon to contend for one client or that
there would be no occasion to use the confidential information acquired from one to
the disadvantage of the other. It is enough that the opposing parties in one case are
present clients and the nature or conditions of the lawyers respective retainers with each
of them would affect the performance of undivided fidelity to both clients.
○ Three tests to determine violation of conflicting interests:
■ Whether a lawyer is duty bound to fight for an issue or claim in behalf of
one client and at the same time oppose the claim for the other client.
● If a lawyer’s argument for one client has to be opposed by the
same lawyer in arguing for the OTHER client.
■ Whether the acceptance of a new relation would prevent the full
discharge of the lawyer’s duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty to the
client or invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double-dealing in the
performance of the duty.
■ Whether the lawyer would be called upon in the new relation to use
against a former client any confidential information acquired through their
connection or previous employment
○ His legal services were initially engaged by complainant to protect her interest
over a certain property. Despite this and despite having knowledge that their
interests clashed, he still met with Caete to discuss the legal interest over the
property and accepted engagement.
○ There is an exception to the prohibition which is when there is consent from
both parties after full disclosure of facts to the complainant and Caete.
However, Atty. Sabistana did not fully disclose the facts to the parties. He only
told complainant of the adverse claim of Caete and urged her to settle the claim
but did not disclose that he was engaged as counsel by Caete. He failed to obtain
the written consent.