respondent’s conduct constitutes professional misconduct and malpractice
2. Abaqueta V Florido
By: Atmos
AC5948, january 23, 2003
Topic: lawyer and client relationship
Petitioners: Gamaliel Abaqueta
Respondents: Atty. Bernardito A. Florido
Mrs. Milagros Yap-Abaqueta – Complainant’s ex-wife, petitioner in the 2nd case
Mrs. Charito Baclig - complainants sister- in-law and attorney-in-fact
RECIT-READY/SUMMARY: Florido was guilty of violating Rule 15.03
of the Code of Professional Responsibility. 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 court found
Florido’s claim of forgetfulness inexcusable since (1) “Gamaliel” is a
unique name, (2) Charito Baclig was the one who referred Florido to
both of them, and (3) it should not have escaped his attention that he
was involved again with the same properties. There is a conflict of
interest if there is an inconsistency in the interests of two or more
opposing parties.
DOCTRINE: “A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written
consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts.”
FACTS
- In this case, Atty. Bernardito Florido appeared as counsel for both
petitioner Gamaliel Abaqueta and his ex-wife, Milagros abaqueta. He first
appeared for petitioner in 1983, in the special proceeding “In the Matter of
the Intestate Estate of Deceased Bonifacia Abaqueta”, wherein he declared
before the court that the properties in that case were the “sole and
exclusive properties” of Gamaliel Abaqueta. Several years later, in 1991,
he appeared for Milagros Abaqueta in “Milagros Yap Abaqueta vs.
Gamaliel Abaqueta” wherein he declared that “plaintiff and defendant
Gamaliel Abaqueta are the conjugal owners of those certain parcels of
land”, referring to the same parcels of land. Additionally, petitioner
claimed that in the second (1991) case, Florido deliberately gave the
wrong address to the court (Houston, Texas) when he actually knew that
petitioner lived in Phoenix, Arizona.
- Consequently, he failed to receive summons and was declared in default in
that case. While the order of default was eventually set aside, complainant
incurred expenses to travel to the Philippines. He believed that
as well as trifling with court processes. Petitioner also claims that florid o
did not secure his consent before representing his ex-wife. Florido raised
the defense that he is a very busy man, that his office handles 80 cases a
year.
- He also maintains that since he never had personal contact with the G.
Abaqueta, and since eight years had lapsed since he represented him, and
since the case “In the Matter of the Intestate Estate of Deceased Bonifacia
Abaqueta” did not include petitioner’s name, he had forgotten that he had
ever represented him. There was no bad faith in his representing M.
Abaqueta; in fact, when he discovered that he had previously served for G.
Abaqueta, he filed a motion to withdraw as counsel, which was granted.
- However, the court found that Florido was guilty of violating Rule 15.03
of the Code of Professional Responsibility. 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 court found
Florido’s claim of forgetfulness inexcusable since (1) “Gamaliel” is a
unique name, (2) Charito Baclig (who is G’s sister-in-law and attorney-in-
fact, and M’s sister) was the one who referred Florido to both of them, and
(3) it should not have escaped his attention that he was involved again
with the same properties. There is a conflict of interest if there is an
inconsistency in the interests of two or more opposing parties.
ISSUE
WON Atty Florido violated Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility by representing Milagros Yap?
HELD: Yes, he reasons explained by respondent are hardly persuasive to excuse
his clear representation of conflicting interests in this case
RATIO
- 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.
- Assuming arguendo 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.
- The fact that the subject matter of the two cases are the same 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. The test is whether or not in behalf of one client, it is the
lawyers duty to fight for an issue or claim but it is his duty to oppose it for
the other client. In short, if he argues for one client, this argument will be
opposed by him when he argues for the other client. 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. Indeed, as we stated in
Sibulo v. Cabrera, 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.