6.
Rosacia v Bulalacao W/N Bulalacao breached his oath of office for representing the employees of his
Adm. No. 3745
October 2, 1995
By: Gayares
Topic:
Petitioners: Cynthia Rosacia
Respondents: Atty. Benjamin Bulalacao
Ponente: Francisco, J.
Characters:
 Cynthia Rosacia: President of Tacma Phil.
 Atty. Benjamin Bulalacao: Retained counsel of Tacma Phil.
Plot: Bulalacao is the former lawyer of Tacma. Employees of Tacma asked Bulalacao
to represent them in a case against Tacma. Tacma countered, saying Bulalacao
breached his oath of office. Rosacia & Tacma won.
DOCTRINE:
The relation of attorney and client is one of confidence and trust in the highest
degree.
FACTS:
 As found by the IBP, the facts are the following:
o June 1990: Tacma Phil. Hired Atty. Bulalacao as retained
counsel.
o October 1990: Lawyer-client relationship between Bulalacao
and Tacma Phil was severed. (Case did not mention why it was
severed)
o July 1991: Several employees of Tacma Phil. consulted
Bulalacao for the purpose of filing an action for illegal dismissal.
Bulalacao agreed to handle the case of the employees against
Tacma by filing a complaint before the National Labor Relations
Commission and appearing in their behalf.
 Rosacia filed a disbarment case against Atty. Bulalacao due to his actions
in representing Tacma’s employees against the latter’s former client.
 The Court referred the case to the IBP.
 IBP Commissioner Victor Fernandez found that Bulalacao breached his
oath of office and accordingly recommended his suspension from the
practice of law for three months.
ISSUE:
former client, Tacma, after the termination of their attorney-client relationship?
HELD/RATIO:
YES – The court agrees with the IBP that Bulalacao breached his oath of office.
Bulalacao also does not dispute this after submitting his motion for
reconsideration, wherein; he admitted that he “did commit an act bordering on
grave misconduct, if not an outright violation of his attorney’s oath.”
Bulalacao, however, pleaded for the Court’s compassion and leniency to reduce the
three-month suspension to either fine or admonition since he is relatively new in
the profession, having been admitted to the PH Bar on April 1990 at the age of 46.
The case was submitted only on August 1991. That he is from humble beginnings
and his suspension will deprive his family of its only source of livelihood. That being
the sole breadwinner in the family, he has realized his mistake and the gravity of
his offense. That he is repenting and pledges himself not to commit the same
mistake and to strictly adhere to the professional standards set forth by the CPR.
The Court reiterates that an attorney owes loyalty to his client not only in the case
in which he has represented but also after the relationship has terminated since it
is not good practice to allow a lawyer to go against a client he once defended. It is
also necessary to avoid treachery and double dealing since it might put a client’s
secret in danger, which is of paramount importance in the administration of justice.
The relation of attorney and client is one of confidence and trust in the highest
degree. A lawyer owes fidelity to his client. An attorney not only becomes familiar
with all the facts connected to his client but also learns the weak and strong point
of his client’s case. No opportunity must be given to attorneys to take advantage of
the secrets of clients while the confidential relation of attorney and client exists.
Otherwise, the legal profession will suffer by the loss of people’s confidence.
Bulalacao’s plea cannot be granted. His argument that he just passed the bar
cannot be recognized since the fact that he only passed the bar means that he just
took an examination in legal ethics, thus, the precepts of the CPR must still have
been fresh in his mind. A lawyer starting to establish his name in legal profession
must start right.
Bulalacao is hereby suspended for three months.