cases in legal ethics.docx

8/9/2019 cases in legal ethics.docx

1/52

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 93707. January 23, 2001]

ROSITA TAN,petitioner, vs.,ATTY. JOSE L. LAPAK, respondent.

E ! I S I O N

"ENO#A,J.$

This is a complaint fled by Rosita Tan against Atty. Jose . apa! "o# miscond$ct% based on

#espondent&s "ail$#e to fle 'ith this Co$#t a petition "o# #e(ie' on ce#tio#a#i o" a #esol$tion o" the

Co$#t o" Appeals dismissing complainant&s appeal. Complainant alleged that despite the "actthat this Co$#t had g#anted #espondent an e)tension o" the time to fle the petition "o# #e(ie' on

ce#tio#a#i and she had paid #espondent his "ee% the latte# nonetheless "ailed to fle the petition in

this Co$#t. Complainant&s lette#% dated Jan$a#y *+% *,,*% add#essed to then Chie" J$stice -a#celo

. /e#nan% stated0

A!o po ay s$m$s$lat sa iyo $pang ihingi ng t$long ang a!ing s$li#anin na may !a$gnayan sa

a!ing !aso% 1.R. No. ,23+3 ROSITA TAN (. CA% et al. na dahilan sa !apabayaan ng a!ing abogado

na si Atty. Jose apa! ay hindi na!apagfle ng Ce#tio#a#i nasa ngayon !anyang inihihinging pal$git

ay naibigay naman% at a!o po ay nagbigay naman ng halagang 45%+++.++ $pang ga'ain lamang

ang petition sa pag#e#epaso ng Ce#tio#a#i s$balit in$$lit pang hindi ga'ain.

6gg. Na Chie" J$stice a!o po&y pinaasa lamang ng a!ing abogado na 'ala man lamang naga'a

!$ng ano ang na#a#apat. A!o naman ay isang 'alang !a#anasan sa bagay na ito ay nani'ala at

naghintay. Nang ma!a$sap !o po siya ay a!ing tinapat !$ng ano na at 'alang nadating na

#es$lta sa gina'a niya ang sagot sa a!ing maghintay na lamang da' a!o. Ng$nit ng a!o po ay

p$m$nta sa -aynila at napadaan a!o sa 6o#te S$p#ema sa!a !o pa lamang napag7alaman na

ang a!ing abogado ay hindi na!apagga'a ng b#ie" ng Ce#tio#a#i at !aya napa'alaan ng bisa ang

a!ing apelasyon.

A!in pong naisip na id$log ang a!ing !aapihan sa 4ang$lo ng I4 ng Cama#ines No#te ang mga

bagay na ito ang sagot po sa a!ing ay maa#i a!ong maghain ng demanda laban sa a!ingabogado na si Atty. Jose . apa! ng$nit a!o po ay mahi#ap lamang at isa pa 'ala a!ong

mat$t$stos sa a!ing abogado. Isa pa po 'ala a!ong pe#a at sapat na pinag7a#alan !aya po hindi

!o alam !$ng sino ang a!ing d$d$l$ngan pa#a t$m$long sa mahihi#ap. 6aya naisip !o pong

s$m$lat sa opisina ninyo% pa#a ihain ang a!ing !a#aingan. 6$ng inyo pong mama#apatin a!o ay

h$mihingi ng t$long sa iyo bilang pina!amataas na h$stisya ang a!ing !aapihan.

Respondent denied the allegations against him. In his mani"estation and comment% dated

-a#ch 5% *,,*% he contended0

a8 -s. Rosita Tan 'as "o#me#ly #ep#esented by Atty. J$anito S$bia in Ci(il Case No. 9:,9%

Rosita Tan (s. ;il"#edo En#i

said case 'as dismissed d$e to "ail$#e o" Rosita Tan and his ?sic8 co$nsel to appea#

d$#ing the sched$led 4#e7T#ial o" the case> . . .said O#de# o" dismissal 'as ho'e(e#

#econside#ed>

b8 On No(embe# **% *,@% Atty. -a#ciano C. Dating% J#. ente#ed his appea#ance "o# the

said Rosita Tan as he# o#iginal co$nsel% Atty. J$anito S$bia% had 'ithd#a'n "o# #easons

only !no'n to he#> . . .Atty. -a#ciano C. Dating% J#. fled an Amended Complaint>


2/52

c8 That on Septembe# :+% *,@@% the Co$#t% th#o$gh Bon. $is Dictado% 'ho hea#d the

case% #ende#ed a decision dismissing Rosita Tan&s complaint>

d8 That on Octobe# *2% *,@@% Atty. Dating% Rosita Tan&s co$nsel% appealed "#om the

ad(e#se decision against he# to the Co$#t o" Appeals>

e8 That Atty. -a#ciano Dating also 'ithd#e' late# as Rosita Tan&s co$nsel and ce#taineopoldo 4. San $ena(ent$#a ente#ed his appea#ance as ne' co$nsel "o# the said

Rosita Tan in the appealed case be"o#e the Co$#t o" Appeals 'hich 'as doc!eted as

C.A. 1.R. CV No. :+,>

"8 On Octobe# :% *,@,% Atty. eopoldo E. San $ena(ent$#a fled a -otion "o# E)tension

o" Time to /ile #ie" "o# Rosita Tan> ho'e(e#% "o# #easons only !no'n to said la'ye#%

he "ailed to fle his Appellant&s #ie"> hence% on /eb#$a#y :+% *,,+% the Co$#t o"

Appeals iss$ed a Resol$tion dismissing the appeal "o# "ail$#e o" Rosita Tan&s co$nsel to

fle Appellant&s #ie" despite e)tension o" time g#anted to him>

g8 That $pon #eceipt by -s. Rosita Tan o" said Resol$tion dismissing he# appeal d$e tothe "ail$#e o" he# -anila la'ye# to fle Appellant&s #ie"% she came to the la' oce o"

$nde#signed co$nsel in the company o" he# "#iend% -#s. 1lo#ia 1atan% to employ the

latte#&s se#(ices to see! #econside#ation o" the O#de# o" dismissal and fle Appellant&s

#ie" to enable he# to p$#s$e he# appeal> Rosita employed the legal se#(ices o"

$nde#signed co$nsel not to fle a 4etition "o# Re(ie' b$t to see! #econside#ation o" the

o#de# o" dismissal o" he# appeal> conside#ing then that she does not ha(e the pape#s to

the case on appeal% Rosita Tan ag#eed to pay co$nsel 49%+++.++ to go to -anila% st$dy

the #eco#ds o" the case in the Co$#t o" Appeals% fle a -otion "o# Reconside#ation and

p#epa#e Appellant&s #ie" "o# he#> she 'as able to pay 42%+++.++ only instead o"

49%+++.++ p#omising to pay the balance late#> conse b$t said appellant hesitantly paid

only 4*%+++.++ 'hich 'as he# only money a(ailable p#omising to pay the balance o"4*%+++.++ late#> the#a"te#% the $nde#signed co$nsel 'ent to the Co$#t o" Appeals to get

ce#tifed t#$e copies o" the Resol$tion denying the -otion "o# Reconside#ation> he then

lea#ned that the#e 'as al#eady an Ent#y o" J$dgment in the case as the Resol$tion

dismissing the appeal had al#eady become fnal> the $nde#signed then in"o#med Rosita

Tan o" he# mis"o#t$ne and in"o#med he# that he 'o$ld st$dy the p#op#iety o" fling an

action "o# ann$lment o" the decision beca$se o" his disco(e#y o" an anomaly 'hich

#es$lted in a mist#ial> beca$se o" contin$o$s setbac!s she s$Fe#ed "#om beginning to

end> Rosita Tan said she had lost all hope and 'as $n'illing to go any "$#the#> she then


3/52

demanded the #e"$nd o" 45%+++.++ "#om the $nde#signed> 'hen the $nde#signed ga(e

bac! the 4*%+++.++ he #ecei(ed "#om he#% she #e"$sed to #ecei(e the amo$nt insisting

that the 'hole amo$nt o" 45%+++.++ be #et$#ned to he# claiming that the $nde#signed

co$nsel had not done anything "o# he# any'ay> hence the mis$nde#standing 'hich

c$lminated in he# sending a lette# complaint to the Bono#able Chie" J$stice o" the

S$p#eme Co$#t.

The case 'as #e"e##ed to the Integ#ated a# o" the 4hilippines "o# in(estigation% #epo#t% and

#ecommendation. On J$ly :,% :+++% the I4 passed a #esol$tion aadopting the #epo#t and

#ecommendation o" its In(estigating Commissione# Jaime -. Viba# that #espondent be

#ep#imanded and o#de#ed to #estit$te to complainant the amo$nt o" 4*%+++.++.

In fnding #espondent g$ilty o" bet#ayal o" his client&s t#$st and confdence% the in(estigating

commissione# said in his #epo#t0

Rega#dless o" the ag#eement on the total amo$nt o" "ees% it is clea# that #espondent committed

to p#epa#e and fle a Gpetition 'ith the S$p#eme Co$#tH and "o# 'hich he #ecei(ed 4*%+++.++ "#om

the complainant ?anne) GH% Sagot% dated -ay 2*% *,,*8. Despite s$ch commitment% he "ailed tofle the petition.

It is not e)plained 'hy the payment o" 4B4*%+++.++ 'as made by complainant "o# the GpetitionH

on A$g$st @% *,,+. At that time% the pe#iod to fle the petition "o# #e(ie' as contemplated by

#espondent and 'hich 'as the s$bect o" an e)tension motion% dated -ay *@% *,,+% fled 'ith

and g#anted by the Bon. S$p#eme Co$#t% had al#eady e)pi#ed. It is to be noted that #espondent&s

motion so$ght an e)tension o" Gthi#ty ?2+8 days "#om -ay :% *,,+ o# $p to J$ne :9% *,,+H. It

'o$ld appea# that #espondent #ecei(ed 4*%+++.++ on A$g$st @% *,,+ "#om complainant at a time

'hen the #emedy o" a #e(ie' o" the dismissal o#de# o" the Co$#t o" Appeals 'as no longe#

a(ailable. et% complainant 'as ne(e# in"o#med o# "a(o#ed 'ith an e)planation that a petition "o##e(ie' 'as no longe# possible% o# pe#haps that anothe# #emedy 'as still open to the

complainant. To agg#a(ate his sit$ation% #espondent alleges in his comment to the complaint ?at

page 28 that a"te# he #ecei(ed 4*%+++.++ "#om the complainant he immediately 'ent to the Co$#t

o" Appeals to get ce#tifed copies o" the #esol$tion denying his motion "o# #econside#ation and

that the#eat he disco(e#ed that an GEnt#y o" J$dgmentH had al#eady been iss$ed. Respondent

sho$ld ha(e !no'n that 'hen he 'ent to the Co$#t o" Appeals a"te# #eciept o" 4*%+++.++% o# a"te#

A$g$st @% *,,+. The pe#iod he #e


4/52

KTLhis 'illingness to #et$#n 4*%+++.++ does not e#ase his b#each o" the Code o" 4#o"essional

Responsibility "o# lac!ing in honesty% diligence and "ai#ness in dealing 'ith his client as sho'n by

the (e#y "act that he #ecei(ed the amo$nt at a time 'hen he co$ld no longe# fle the Gpetition

'ith the S$p#eme Co$#tH. Bis client dese#(ed the in"o#mation that on s$ch date the decision o"

the Co$#t o" Appeals 'as al#eady fnal. Respondent&s act$ation o" fling an e)tension motion 'ith

the Bon. S$p#eme Co$#t and yet not fling an e)tension motion 'ith the Bon. S$p#eme Co$#t and

yet not fling the pleading 'ithin the pe#iod #e


5/52

The fling o" a petition "o# #e(ie' is simila# to the fling o" an appellant&s o# appellee&s

b#ie". In Mariveles v. Mallari,K*L it 'as held that the la'ye#&s "ail$#e to fle an appellant&s b#ie"

despite n$me#o$s e)tensions o" time to fle the same constit$tes a blatant (iolation o" R$le *:.+2

o" the Code o" 4#o"essional Responsibility. As al#eady noted% this R$le p#o(ides that a"te#

obtaining e)tensions o" time to fle pleadings% memo#anda% o# b#ie"s% a la'ye# sho$ld not let the

pe#iod lapse 'itho$t s$bmitting the same o# oFe#ing an e)planation "o# his "ail$#e to do so.

In Re: Santiago F. Marcos%K:Lthe Co$#t conside#ed a la'ye#&s "ail$#e to fle a b#ie" "o# his client

as amo$nting to ine)c$sable negligence. Said the Co$#t0

An atto#ney is bo$nd to p#otect his client&s inte#est to the best o" his ability and 'ith $tmost

diligence. ?Del Rosa#io (. CA% **5 SCRA *9,8. A "ail$#e to fle a b#ie" "o# his client ce#tainly

constit$tes ine)c$sable negligence on his pa#t. ?4eople (. Villa#% 5 SCRA *+38 The #espondent

has indeed committed a se#io$s lapse in the d$ty o'ed by him to his client as 'ell as to the

Co$#t not to delay litigation and to aid in the speedy administ#ation o" $stice. ?4eople (. Daban%

52 SCRA *@9> 4eople (. Estocada% 52 SCRA 9*98.

At any #ate% e(en ass$ming that the #esol$tion o" the Co$#t o" Appeals e)pi#ed on -ay :3%*,,+% he sho$ld not ha(e as!ed on A$g$st% @% *,,+ "o# the balance o" 49%+++.++ 'hich

complainant had ag#eed to pay since the #esol$tion had al#eady become fnal at that time. As

the in(estigating commissione# pointed o$t in his #epo#t0

To agg#a(ate his sit$ation% #espondent alleges in his comment to the complaint ?at page 28 that

a"te# he #ecei(ed 4*%+++.++ "#om the complainant he immediately 'ent to the Co$#t o" Appeals

to get ce#tifed copies o" the #esol$tion denying his motion "o# #econside#ation and that the#eat

he disco(e#ed that an GEnt#y o" J$dgmentH had al#eady been iss$ed. Respondent sho$ld ha(e

!no'n that 'hen he 'ent to the Co$#t o" Appeals a"te# #eceipt o" 4*%+++.++% o# a"te# A$g$st @%

*,,+% ?t8he pe#iod he #e


6/52

that his cleint is entitled to the beneft o" any and e(e#y #emedy and de"ense that is a$tho#i=ed

by the la' o" the land and he may e)pect his la'ye# to asse#t e(e#y s$ch #emedy o# de"ense. K5L

Third. No# can #espondent e)c$se himsel" "o# his "ail$#e to fle the petition "o# #e(ie' on

ce#tio#a#i on the g#o$nd that complainant "ailed to pay 'hat she p#omised to pay. Complainant

ag#eed to pay 49%+++.++. O" this amo$nt% she paid #espondent 42%+++.++ and late# 4*%+++.++%

lea(ing only a balance o" 4*%+++.++. E(en i" this balance had not been paid% this "act 'as nots$cient to $sti"y the "ail$#e o" #espondent to comply 'ith his p#o"essional obligation 'hich does

not depend "o# compliance on the payment o" a la'ye#&s "ees.

As #espondent $tte#ly "ailed to comply 'ith his p#o"essional commitment to complainant% it is%

the#e"o#e% not $st "o# him to !eep the legal "ee o" 45%+++.++ 'hich complainant paid him. Be

has not #ight"$lly ea#ned that "ee and sho$ld #et$#n it to complainant.

%&ERE'ORE% Atty. Jose . apa! is RE4RI-ANDED and ORDERED to #e"$nd to complainant

Rosita Tan the amo$nt o" 45%+++.++. Be is admonished hence"o#th to e)e#cise g#eate# ca#e and

diligence in the pe#"o#mance o" his d$ties to'a#ds his clients and the co$#ts and 'a#ned that

#epetition o" the same o# simila# oFense 'ill be mo#e se(e#ely dealt 'ith.

SO ORERE.

Bellosillo, (Chairman), Quisumbing, Buena, and e !eon, "r., ""., conc$#.

'IRST I(ISION

A.!. No. )*3)

Jan$a#y :2% :++

LETI!IA GON#ALES, Complainant% (s.ATTY. "AR!ELINO !A+!ANA, Respondent.

) 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 )R E S O L T I O N

ASTRIA-"ARTINE#,J.$
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jan2001/93707.htm#_edn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jan2001/93707.htm#_edn4


7/52

e"o#e this Co$#t is a complaint fled by eticia 1on=ales ?1on=ales8 p#aying that Atty.

-a#celino Cab$cana% ?#espondent8 be disba##ed "o# #ep#esenting conicting inte#ests.

On Jan$a#y @% :++5% 1on=ales fled a petition be"o#e the Integ#ated a# o" the 4hilippines

?I48 alleging that0 she 'as the complainant in a case "o# s$m o" money and damages fled

be"o#e the -$nicipal T#ial Co$#t in Cities ?-TCC8 o" Santiago City% doc!eted as Ci(il Case No. *7

93 'he#e she 'as #ep#esented by the la' f#m CACANA% CACANA% DE 1-AN AND

CACANA A; O//ICE% 'ith Atty. Edma# Cab$cana handling the case and he#ein #espondent as

an associatePpa#tne#> on /eb#$a#y :% :++*% a decision 'as #ende#ed in the ci(il case o#de#ing

the losing pa#ty to pay 1on=ales the amo$nt o" 4*3%2*+.++ 'ith inte#est and 4%+++.++ as

atto#ney&s "ees> She#iF Romeo 1atcheco% "ailed to "$lly implement the '#it o" e)ec$tion iss$ed in

connection 'ith the $dgment 'hich p#ompted 1on=ales to fle a complaint against the said

she#iF 'ith this Co$#t> in Septembe# :++2% She#iF 1atcheco and his 'i"e 'ent to the ho$se o"

1on=ales> they ha#assed 1on=ales and as!ed he# to e)ec$te an ada(it o" desistance #ega#ding

he# complaint be"o#e this Co$#t> 1on=ales the#ea"te# fled against the 1atchecos c#iminal cases

"o# t#espass% g#a(e th#eats% g#a(e o#al de"amation% simple coe#cion and $n$st (e)ation>

not'ithstanding the pendency o" Ci(il Case No. *793% 'he#e #espondent&s la' f#m 'as still

#ep#esenting 1on=ales% he#ein #espondent #ep#esented the 1atchecos in the cases fled by1on=ales against the said spo$ses> #espondent sho$ld be disba##ed "#om the p#actice o" la' since

#espondent&s acceptance o" the cases o" the 1atchecos (iolates the la'ye#7client #elationship

bet'een complainant and #espondent&s la' f#m and #ende#s #espondent liable $nde# the Code o"

4#o"essional Responsibility ?C4R8 pa#tic$la#ly R$les *+.+*%K*L*2.+*%K:L*9.+:%K2L*9.+2%K5L:*.+*K9Land

:*.+:.KL

On Jan$a#y ,% :++5% the I47Commission on a# Discipline o#de#ed Atty. -a#celino

Cab$cana% J#. to s$bmit his Ans'e# to the complaint.K3L

In his Ans'e#% #espondent a(e##ed0 Be ne(e# appea#ed and #ep#esented complainant in

Ci(il Case No. *793 since it 'as his b#othe#% Atty. Edma# Cab$cana 'ho appea#ed and

#ep#esented 1on=ales in said case. Be admitted that he is #ep#esenting She#iF 1atcheco and his'i"e in the cases fled against them b$t claimed that his appea#ance is#ro bono and that the

spo$ses pleaded 'ith him as no othe# co$nsel 'as 'illing to ta!e thei# case. Be ente#ed his

appea#ance in good "aith and opted to #ep#esent the spo$ses #athe# than lea(e them

de"enseless. ;hen the 1atchecos as!ed "o# his assistance% the spo$ses said that the cases fled

against them by 1on=ales 'e#e me#ely instigated by a high #an!ing ocial 'ho 'anted to get

e(en 'ith them "o# thei# #e"$sal to testi"y in "a(o# o" the said ocial in anothe# case. At f#st%

#espondent declined to se#(e as co$nsel o" the spo$ses as he too did not 'ant to inc$# the i#e o"

the high7#an!ing ocial% b$t a"te# #eali=ing that he 'o$ld be abdicating a s'o#n d$ty to delay no

man "o# money o# malice% #espondent ente#ed his appea#ance as de"ense co$nsel o" the spo$ses

"#ee o" any cha#ge. Not long a"te#% the p#esent complaint 'as c#a"ted against #espondent 'hichsho's that #espondent is no' the s$bect o" a Qdemolition ob.& The ci(il case fled by 1on=ales

'he#e #espondent&s b#othe# se#(ed as co$nsel is diFe#ent and distinct "#om the c#iminal cases

fled by complainant against the 1atcheco spo$ses% th$s% he did not (iolate any canon on legal

ethics. K@L

1on=ales fled a Reply contending that the ci(il case handled by #espondent&s b#othe# is

closely connected 'ith the cases o" the 1atchecos 'hich the #espondent is handling> that the

claim o" #espondent that he is handling the cases o" the spo$ses#ro bonois not t#$e since he

has his o'n agenda in oFe#ing his se#(ices to the spo$ses> and that the allegation that she is

fling the cases against the spo$ses beca$se she is being $sed by a po'e#"$l pe#son is not t#$e

since she fled the said cases o$t o" he# o'n "#ee 'ill.

K,L

The Commission on a# Discipline o" the I4 sent to the pa#ties a Notice o" -andato#y

Con"e#ence dated -a#ch *% :++5.K*+L On the sched$led con"e#ence% only a #ep#esentati(e o"

complainant appea#ed.K**L Commissione# Dema#ee Ra(al o" the I47CD then di#ected both

pa#ties to fle thei# #especti(e (e#ifed position pape#s.K*:L

Complainant fled a -emo#and$m #eite#ating he# ea#lie# asse#tions and added that

#espondent p#epa#ed and nota#i=ed co$nte#7ada(its o" the 1atcheco spo$ses> that the high7

#an!ing ocial #e"e##ed to by #espondent is J$dge R$ben 4lata and the acc$sations o" #espondent

against the said $dge is an attac! against a b#othe# in the p#o"ession 'hich is a (iolation o" the

C4R> and that #espondent contin$es to $se the name o" De 1$=man in thei# la' f#m despite the
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/jan2006/ac_6836.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/jan2006/ac_6836.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/jan2006/ac_6836.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/jan2006/ac_6836.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/jan2006/ac_6836.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/jan2006/ac_6836.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/jan2006/ac_6836.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/jan2006/ac_6836.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/jan2006/ac_6836.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/jan2006/ac_6836.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/jan2006/ac_6836.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/jan2006/ac_6836.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/jan2006/ac_6836.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/jan2006/ac_6836.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/jan2006/ac_6836.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/jan2006/ac_6836.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/jan2006/ac_6836.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/jan2006/ac_6836.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/jan2006/ac_6836.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/jan2006/ac_6836.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/jan2006/ac_6836.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/jan2006/ac_6836.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/jan2006/ac_6836.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/jan2006/ac_6836.htm#_ftn12


8/52

"act that said pa#tne# has al#eady been appointed as Assistant 4#osec$to# o" Santiago City% again

in (iolation o" the C4R.K*2L

Respondent fled his 4osition 4ape# #estating his allegations in his Ans'e#.K*5L

On A$g$st :2% :++5% Commissione# ;il"#edo E.J.E. Reyes iss$ed an O#de# noti"ying both

pa#ties to appea# be"o#e his oce on Octobe# :@% :++5 "o# a cla#ifcato#y


9/52

It is #espect"$lly #ecommended that Atty. -a#celino C. Cab$cana% J#. ?be8ste#nly 'a#ned and #ep#imanded andad(ised to be mo#e ci#c$mspect and ca#e"$lin accepting cases 'hich might #es$lt in conict o" inte#ests. K:*L

On J$ne :9% :++9% a Resol$tion 'as passed by the oa#d o" 1o(e#no#s o" the I4% to 'it0

RESOTION NO. VI7:++97*92CD CASE NO. +27**@eticia 1on=ales (s.Atty. -a#celino Cab$cana% J#.

R-S!/- to $&T and $&&R/-, as it is hereb' $&T- and $&&R/-, theRe#ort and Recommendation o0 the 1nvestigating Commissioner o0 the aboveentitled case, herein made #art o0 this Resolution as $nne2 3$45 and, 6nding therecommendation 0ull' su##orted b' the evidence on record and the a##licable lasand rules, and considering that res#ondent made (a) mista%e in the acce#tance o0the administrative case o0 Romeo *atcheco, $tt'. Marcelino Cabucana, "r. is hereb'7$R+- and R-&R1M$+- and advised to be more circums#ect and care0ul in

acce#ting cases hich might result in con8ict o0 interests.

K::L

e"o#e going to the me#its% let it be cla#ifed that cont#a#y to the #epo#t o" Commissione#

Reyes% #espondent did not only #ep#esent the 1atcheco spo$ses in the administ#ati(e case fledby 1on=ales against them. As #espondent himsel" na##ated in his 4osition 4ape#% he li!e'iseacted as thei# co$nsel in the c#iminal cases fled by 1on=ales against them. K:2L

;ith that settled% 'e fnd #espondent g$ilty o" (iolating R$le *9.+2 o" Canon *9 o" the Code

o" 4#o"essional Responsibility% to 'it0

R$le *9.+2 A la'ye# shall not #ep#esent conicting inte#est e)cept by'#itten consent o" all conce#ned gi(en a"te# a "$ll disclos$#e o" the "acts.

It is 'ell7settled that a la'ye# is ba##ed "#om #ep#esenting conicting inte#ests e)cept by'#itten consent o" all conce#ned gi(en a"te# a "$ll disclos$#e o" the "acts.K:5L S$ch p#ohibition is"o$nded on p#inciples o" p$blic policy and good taste as the nat$#e o" the la'ye#7client #elationsis one o" t#$st and confdence o" the highest deg#ee. K:9L a'ye#s a#e e)pected not only to !eepin(iolate the client&s confdence% b$t also to a(oid the appea#ance o" t#eache#y and do$ble7dealing "o# only then can litigants be enco$#aged to ent#$st thei# sec#ets to thei# la'ye#s% 'hichis o" pa#amo$nt impo#tance in the administ#ation o" $stice. K:L

One o" the tests o" inconsistency o" inte#ests is 'hethe# the acceptance o" a ne' #elation

'o$ld p#e(ent the "$ll discha#ge o" the la'ye#&s d$ty o" $ndi(ided fdelity and loyalty to the cliento# in(ite s$spicion o" $n"aith"$lness o# do$ble7dealing in the pe#"o#mance o" that d$ty.K:3L
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/jan2006/ac_6836.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/jan2006/ac_6836.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/jan2006/ac_6836.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/jan2006/ac_6836.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/jan2006/ac_6836.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/jan2006/ac_6836.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/jan2006/ac_6836.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/jan2006/ac_6836.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/jan2006/ac_6836.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/jan2006/ac_6836.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/jan2006/ac_6836.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/jan2006/ac_6836.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/jan2006/ac_6836.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/jan2006/ac_6836.htm#_ftn27


10/52

As 'e e)po$nded in the #ecent case o" Quiambao vs. Bamba%K:@L

The p#osc#iption against #ep#esentation o" conicting inte#ests applies to a

sit$ation 'he#e the opposing pa#ties a#e p#esent clients in the same action o# in an$n#elated action. It is o" no moment that the la'ye# 'o$ld not be called $pon tocontend "o# one client that 'hich the la'ye# has to oppose "o# the othe# client% o#that the#e 'o$ld be no occasion to $se the confdential in"o#mation ac


11/52

;e shall conside# ho'e(e# as mitigating ci#c$mstances the "act that he is #ep#esenting the

1atcheco spo$ses#ro bono and that it 'as his f#m and not #espondent pe#sonally% 'hichhandled the ci(il case o" 1on=ales. As #eco$nted by complainant he#sel"% Atty. Edma# Cab$canasigned the ci(il case o" complainant by stating f#st the name o" the la' f#m CACANA%CACANA% DE 1-AN AND CACANA A; O//ICE% $nde# 'hich% his name and signat$#eappea#> 'hile he#ein #espondent signed the pleadings "o# the 1atcheco spo$ses only 'ith his

name%K2,L

'itho$t any mention o" the la' f#m. ;e also note the obse#(ation o" the I4Commissione# Reyes that the#e 'as no malice and bad "aith in #espondent&s acceptance o" the1atchecos& cases as sho'n by the mo(e o" complainant to 'ithd#a' the case.

Th$s% "o# (iolation o" R$le *9.+2% Canon *9 o" the Code o" 4#o"essional Responsibility andta!ing into conside#ation the a"o#ementioned mitigating ci#c$mstances% 'e impose the penalty o"fne o"4:%+++.++.

;BERE/ORE% Resol$tion No. VI7:++97*92 o" the Integ#ated a# o" the 4hilippinesis APPRO(E'ith "OI'I!ATIONthat #espondent Atty. -a#celino Cab$cana% J#. is 'INE theamo$nt o" T'o Tho$sand 4esos ?4:%+++.++8 'ith a STERN %ARNINGthat a commission o" thesame o# simila# act in the "$t$#e shall be dealt 'ith mo#e se(e#ely.

SO ORDERED.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/jan2006/ac_6836.htm#_ftn39http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/jan2006/ac_6836.htm#_ftn39


12/52

SE!ON I(ISION

A.C. No. 92+2

J$ne *9% :++

&"+ERTO !. LI", JR., n /a o PENTA RESORTS!ORPORATION4A55orny-n-'a65 oL"OT A. JALANONI,!o8anan5,

- r : u : -ATTY. NI!ANOR (. (ILLAROSA, R:8on;n5.

< - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - and

?b8 to DEN% "o# lac! o" me#it% the petition fled by complainant p#aying that

the #esol$tion o" the Integ#ated a# o" the 4hilippines dismissing the instantcase be #e(ie'ed and that p#ope# sanctions be imposed $pon #espondent.K5L

No motion "o# #econside#ation o" the a"o#esaid denial in Administ#ati(e Case No. 99+:appea#s in the #eco#ds. The Co$#t is no' called $pon to dete#mine the me#its o" this #emainingcase ?A.C. No. 92+28 against #espondent. The complaint #ead0

AS /IRST CASE O/ ACTION

That #espondent is a p#acticing la'ye# and a membe# o" the Integ#ated a#o" the 4hilippines% acolod City% Neg#os Occidental Chapte#. That sometime onSeptembe# *,% *,,3% $mot A. Jalandoni% Chai#manP4#esident o" 4RC 'as s$edbe"o#e RTC% #anch 9: in Ci(il Case No. ,37,@9% RE0 Cabiles et al. (s. $mot

Jalandoni% et al. The latte# engaged the legal se#(ices o" he#ein #espondent 'ho

"o#mally ente#ed his appea#ance on Octobe# :% *,,3 as co$nsel "o# the de"endants$mot A. JalandoniPTotti Anlap 1a#goles. Respondent as a conse


13/52

That it 'as #espondent 'ho e)cl$si(ely handled the enti#e p#oceedings o"

a"o#e7cited Ci(il Case No. ,37,@9 KandL p#esented $mot A. Jalandoni as his 'itnessp#io# to "o#mally #esting his case. Bo'e(e#% on Ap#il :3% *,,, res#ondent, ithoutdue notice #rior to a scheduled hearing, sur#risingl' 6led a Motion to ithdra ascounsel, one da' be0ore its scheduled hearing on $#ril ;, . $ care0ul #erusalo0 said Motion to 7ithdra as Counsel ill conclusivel' sho that no co#' thereo0

as 0urnished to !umot $. "alandoni, neither does it bear her con0ormit'. Nodo$bt% s$ch noto#io$s act o" #espondent #es$lted to ?sic8 i##epa#able damage andin$#y to $mot A. Jalandoni% et al since the decision o" the co$#t RTC% #anch 9:p#o(ed ad(e#se to $mot A. Jalandoni% et al. The "a# #eaching eFects o" the$ntimely and $na$tho#i=ed 'ithd#a'al by #espondent ca$sed i##epa#able damageand in$#y to $mot A. Jalandoni% et al> a highly me#ito#io$s case in "a(o# o" his clients$ddenly Ks$Fe#edL $ne)pected de"eat.

That the g#o$nds alleged by #espondent "o# his 'ithd#a'al as co$nsel o"$mot A. Jalandoni% et al. 'as that he is KaL #etained co$nsel o" Dennis 1. Jalb$enaand the /e#nando /. 1on=aga% Inc. It 'as Dennis 1. Jalb$ena 'ho #ecommended himto be the co$nsel o" $mot A. Jalandoni% et al. It is 'o#thy to note that "#om the

o$tset% #espondent al#eady !ne' that Dennis 1. Jalb$ena is the son7in7la' o" $motA. Jalandoni being ma##ied to he# eldest da$ghte#% Ca#men J. Jalb$ena. The othe#di#ecto#sPoce#s o" 4RC 'e#e comp#ised o" the eldest sibling o" the #emainingchild#en o" $mot A. Jalandoni made in acco#dance 'ith he# 'ishes% 'ith thee)ception o" Ca#men J. Jalb$ena% the only da$ghte# #egiste#ed as one o" theinco#po#ato#s o" 4RC% ob(io$sly% being the a$tho# o" the #egist#ation itsel" KsicL.Respondent "$#the# stated that he cannot #e"$se to #ep#esent Dennis 1. Jalb$ena inthe case fled against the latte# be"o#e the City 4#osec$to#s Oce by 4RCP$mot A.

Jalandoni d$e to an alleged #etaine#ship ag#eement 'ith said Dennis 1. Jalb$ena.KBeL li!e'ise #ep#esented Ca#men J. Jalb$ena and one Vicente Delfn 'hen 4RC fledthe c#iminal complaint against them. On Ap#il +% *,,,% t'enty7one ?:*8 daysp#io# to #espondent&s fling o" his -otion to ;ithd#a' as Co$nsel o" $mot A.

Jalandoni% et al.% #espondent ente#ed his appea#ance 'ith acolod City 4#osec$to#OIC7Vicente C. Ac$pan% th#o$gh a lette# expressly statingthat eFecti(e said datehe 'as appea#ing as co$nsel "o# both Dennis 1. Jalb$ena and Ca#men J. Jalb$enaand Vicente Delfn in the GEsta"aH case fled by the co#po#ation ?4RC8 againstthem. Simply stated% as ea#ly as Ap#il % *,,, res#ondent alread' a##eared 0orand in behal0 o0 the S#s. Carmen and ennis "albuena?/icente el6n hileconcurrentl' re#resenting !umot $. "alandoni, et al. in Civil Case +o. =@=;A>.9oever, des#ite being 0ull' aare that the interest o0 his client !umot $. "alandoniholding an eDuivalent o0 -ight'to (;E) #ercent o0 &RCs shares o0 stoc%s andthe interest o0 &RC are one and the same, notithstanding the 0act that !umot $.

"alandoni as still his client in Civil Case +o. =@=;A, res#ondent o#ted tore#resent o##osing clients at the same time. The co#po#ation&s complaint "o# esta"a

?42%*@2%99:9.++8 'as fled against the Sps. Dennis and Ca#men J. Jalb$ena togethe#'ith C4 ban! manage# Vicente Delfn. S$cceeding e(ents 'ill sho' that#espondent instead o" desisting "#om "$#the# (iolation o" his Kla'ye#&sL oath#ega#ding fdelity to his client% 'ith e)t#eme a##ogance% blatantly igno#ed o$# la'son egal Ethics% by palpably and despicably de"ending the Sps. Dennis and Ca#men

J. Jalb$ena in all the cases fled against them by 4RC th#o$gh its d$ly a$tho#i=ed#ep#esentati(es% be"o#e the 4$blic 4#osec$to#s Oce% acolod City ?44 (s. Sps.Dennis and Ca#men J. Jalb$ena "o# /alse TestimonyP4e#$#y% (iol. o" A#t. *@2 R4C$nde# C I.S. No. :+++7:2+5> (iol. o" A#t. 22% 25% *@* and *@2 R4C $nde# C I.S.:+++7:252% 44 (s. Ca#men J. Jalb$ena "o# (iol. o" A#t. 2*9 $nde# C I.S. :+++7:*:9and (a#io$s othe# #elated c#iminal cases against the Sps. Dennis and Ca#men

Jalb$ena8.

AS SECOND CASE O/ ACTION The#e is no disp$te that #espondent 'as able to ac


14/52

im "o# (iol. o" A#t. *3: o" Re(ised 4enal Code d$e to a boa#d #esol$tion e)ec$ted bythe co#po#ation 'hich the Sps. Jalb$ena% 'ith the assistance o" he#ein #espondent%claimed to ha(e been made 'itho$t an act$al boa#d meeting d$e to an alleged lac!o"


15/52

or a6>: a 8ro8r r6a5on, :a / 5ra5; a: an un:?n; 8a;n?. ?$samended, $.M. HH


16/52

That KheL KalsoL (ehemently denKiesL anothe# disto#ted allegation o" -#. imthat KheL #ep#esented -#s. Jalandoni KinL the n5rp#oceedings o" KtheL case. KimLhimsel" attested that KheL KfledL KhisL -otion to ;ithd#a' As Co$nsel% dated A8r2), 1999 % be"o#e the t#ial co$#t% sometime on Ap#il :3% *,,,. 9o then couldhe have re#resented Mrs. "alandoni 0or the entire #roceedings o0 the caseI/$#the#% -#. im n5n5onayhid "#om this Bono#able Co$#t the impo#tant "act that

KhisL -otion to ;ithd#a' 'as APPRO(Eby the t#ial co$#t beca$se o"the 8o::/5yo" a conict o" inte#est. ))) ))) ))).K**L

Respondent disc#edited im&s claim that he delibe#ately 'ithheld the #eco#ds o" the cited

ci(il case. Be insisted that it too! him $st a "e' days% not th#ee months% to t$#n o(e# the #eco#dso" the case to im.K*:L ;hile he admitted an o(e#sight in add#essing the notice o" the motion to'ithd#a' as co$nsel to -#s. Totti Anlap 1a#goles instead o" -#s. Jalandoni at Botel Alhamb#a% hemaintained that it 'as the height o" hypoc#isy to allege that -#s. Jalandoni 'as not a'a#e o" hismotion to 'ithd#a'K*2Lsince -#s. 1a#goles is -#s. Jalandoni&s siste# and Botel Alhamb#a is o'nedby 4RC 'hich% in t$#n% act$ally belongs to -#s. Jalandoni. Respondent also a#g$ed that nop#e$dice 'as s$Fe#ed by -#s. Jalandoni beca$se she 'as al#eady #ep#esented by Atty. o#en=o S.Almina=a "#om the f#st hea#ing date.K*5L In "act% #espondent contended% it 'as he 'ho 'as not

notifed o" the s$bstit$tion o" co$nsels.K*9L

As to the bill o" 4 9%+++% #espondent stated0

That -#. im beg#$dgeKsL KhimL "o# billing -#s. Jalandoni /i(e Tho$sand?4hp9%+++.++8 4esos. -#. B$mbe#to C. im J#. con(eniently or?5: that the net'o#th o" the p#ope#ty togethe# 'ith its imp#o(ements% $nde# litigation in thatCabiles% et al. (s. 1a#goles et al. case% is a minim$m o" T&IRTY "ILLIONDP830,000,000.00 PESOSthen% and mo#e so no'. KBeL cannot fnd any la''hich p#ohibits a co$nsel "#om billing a client "o# se#(ices in p#opo#tion to these#(ices he #ende#ed.K*L

In (ie' o" these de(elopments% #espondent 'as adamant that0the only #eal .K*3L

On J$ne *@% :++*% the Co$#t #esol(ed to #e"e# the complaint to the Integ#ated a# o" the

4hilippines ?I48 "o# in(estigation. Commissione# ydia A. Na(a##o made the "ollo'ing #epo#t and#ecommendation0

A"te# going o(e# the Kpieces o" e(idenceL s$bmitted by the pa#tiesK%L the$nde#signed noted that "#om the onset% 4RC had a case 'he#ein #espondent 'as itsco$nsel. ate# on% complainant had a case against spo$ses Jalb$ena 'he#e thepa#ties 'e#e #elated to each othe# and the latte# spo$ses 'e#e #ep#esented by the#espondent as thei# #etained co$nsel> a"te# #espondent had allegedly 'ithd#a'n asco$nsel "o# the complainant in Ci(il Case No. ,37,@9.

eing the h$sband o" one o" the complainants 'hich #espondent himsel"a(e##ed in his ans'e#% it is inc$mbent $pon B$mbe#to im J#. to #ep#esent his 'i"e asone o" the #ep#esentati(es o" 4RC and Alhamb#a Botel in the administ#ati(ecomplaint to p#otect not only he# inte#est b$t that o" the K"amily&sL.

/#om the "acts obtaining% it is e(ident that complainant had a la'ye#7client#elationship 'ith the #espondent be"o#e the latte# K'asL #etained as co$nsel by theSpo$ses Jalb$ena 'hen the latte# 'e#e s$ed by complainant&s #ep#esentati(e.

;e cannot dis#ega#d the "act that on this sit$ation "o# some #eason o#anothe# the#e e)isted some confdentiality and t#$st bet'een complainants and#espondent to ens$#e the s$ccess"$l de"ense o" thei# cases.

Respondent "o# ha(ing appea#ed as co$nsel "o# the Spo$ses Jalb$ena 'hencha#ged by #espondent&s "o#me# client Jalandoni o" 4RC and Alhamb#a Botel%
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn17


17/52

#ep#esented conicting inte#ests in (iolation o" the Canon o" 4#o"essionalResponsibility.

As s$ch the#e"o#e% the nde#signed has no alte#nati(e b$t to #espect"$lly#ecommend the s$spension o" the #espondent "#om the p#actice o" la' "o# a pe#iodo" si) ?8 months "#om #eceipt he#eo".

RES4ECT/ S-ITTED.4asig City% J$ne :+% :++:.K*@L

The I4 oa#d o" 1o(e#no#s ?oa#d8% ho'e(e#% #e(e#sed the #ecommendation o" the

in(estigating commissione# and #esol(ed to dismiss the case on A$g$st 2% :++:. K*,L$mot A.Jalandoni fled a motion "o# #econside#ation ?-R8 on Octobe# *@% :++: b$t the oa#d denied the-R since it no longe# had $#isdiction to conside# and #esol(e a matte# al#eady endo#sed to thisCo$#t.K:+L

e"o#e del(ing into the co#e iss$es o" this case% 'e need to add#ess some p#elimina#y

matte#s.

Respondent a#g$es that the alleged #esol$tion o" 4RC and the special po'e# o" atto#neygi(en by $mot A. Jalandoni to B$mbe#to did not contemplate the fling o" an administ#ati(ecomplaint.K:*L Citing the R$les o" Co$#t% #espondent said that0

KsL$ch complaints a#e pe#sonal in nat$#e and the#e"o#e% the fling o" the same%cannot be ;?a5;by the alleged agg#ie(ed pa#ty to any thi#d pe#son $nlesse)p#essly a$tho#i=ed by la'.

;e m$st note% ho'e(e#% the "ollo'ing0SECTION *. 9o instituted. G 4#oceedings "o# disba#ment% s$spension o# discipline o"

atto#neys may be ta!en by the S$p#eme Co$#t motu #ro#io, o# by the Integ#ated a#o" the 4hilippines ?I48 $pon the (e#ifed complaint o"any 8r:on.The complaintshall state clea#ly and concisely the "acts complained o" and shall be s$ppo#ted byada(its o# pe#sons ha(ing 8r:ona >no=;?o" the "acts the#ein allegedandPo# by s$ch doc$ments a may s$bstantiate said "acts.

The I4 oa#d o" 1o(e#no#s may% motu #ro#io o# $pon #e"e##al by theS$p#eme Co$#t o# by a Chapte# oa#d o" Oce#s% o# a5 5 n:5an6 o any8r:on% initiate and p#osec$te p#ope# cha#ges against any e##ing atto#neys.K::L?emphasis o$#s8

Complaints against membe#s o" the a# a#e p$#s$ed to p#ese#(e the integ#ity o" the legal

p#o"ession% not "o# p#i(ate (endetta. Th$s% 'hoe(e# has s$ch pe#sonal !no'ledge o" "actsconstit$ting a ca$se o" action against e##ing la'ye#s may fle a (e#ifed complaint 'ith the Co$#to# the I4.K:2LCo#olla#y to the p$blic inte#est in these p#oceedings is the "ollo'ing #$le0

SEC. **. e0ects. GNo ;65 n a 6o8an5, no56, an:=r, or n 58ro6;n? or 5 In:5?a5orF: R8or5 :a / 6on:;r; a: :u/:5an5aun:: 5 +oar; o Gornor:% $pon conside#ing the 'hole #eco#d% n;: 5a5:u6 ;65 a: r:u5; or ay r:u5 n a :6arra? o u:56 % in 'hiche(ent the oa#d shall ta!e s$ch #emedial action as the ci#c$mstances may 'a##ant%incl$ding in(alidation o" the enti#e p#oceedings.K:5L?emphasis o$#s8

Respondent "ailed to s$bstantiate his allegation that im&s complaint 'as de"ecti(e in "o#mand s$bstance% and that ente#taining it 'o$ld #es$lt in a misca##iage o" $stice. /o# the same#eason% 'e 'ill no longe# p$t in iss$e the fling at the onset o" a motion to dismiss by #espondentinstead o" an ans'e# o# comment. K:9L

The co#e iss$es be"o#e $s no' a#e0

*. 'hethe# the#e e)isted a conict o" inte#est in the cases #ep#esented andhandled by #espondent% and

:. 'hethe# #espondent p#ope#ly 'ithd#e' his se#(ices as co$nsel o" #eco#din Ci(il Case No. ,37,@9.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn25


18/52

!ON'LI!T O' INTEREST

4etitione#s alleged that as an oFshoot o" #ep#esenting conicting inte#ests% b#each o"atto#ney7client confdentiality and delibe#ate 'ithholding o" #eco#ds 'e#e committed by#espondent. To eFecti(ely $n#a(el the alleged conict o" inte#est% 'e m$st loo! into the casesin(ol(ed.

In Civil Case +o. =@=;A% #espondent #ep#esented $mot A. Jalandoni and Totti Anlap1a#goles. This 'as a case "o# the #eco(e#y o" possession o" p#ope#ty in(ol(ing Botel Alhamb#a% ahotel o'ned by 4RC.

In BC 1.S. +o. ==


19/52

fdelity and loyalty to his client o# in(ite s$spicion o" $n"aith"$lness o# do$ble7dealing in the pe#"o#mance the#eo"% and also 'hethe# he 'ill be called $pon in hisne' #elation to $se against his f#st client any !no'ledge ac


20/52

been held that a client is "#ee to change his co$nsel in a pending case andthe#ea"te# #etain anothe# la'ye# to #ep#esent him. That manne# o" changing ala'ye# does not need the consent o" the la'ye# to be dismissed. No# does it #e


21/52

/alame ?complainants8 against Atty. Edga# J. ag$io ?#espondent8% doc!eted as CD Case No. +57**,*.

In thei# ComplaintK:Lagainst #espondent% complainants alleged that on *9 J$ly *,,*% thei#"athe#% the late ydio GJe##yH /alame ?ydio8% engaged the se#(ices o" #espondent to #ep#esent himin an action "o# "o#cible ent#y doc!eted as Ci(il Case No. A7:,5 ?the f#st ci(il case8 andentitled 39eirs o0 -milio T. S', re#resented b' $nastacia /ela'o /da. e S' and Belen /. S'

vs. !'dio O"err' Falame, RaleighFalame and Four (N) "ohn oes%H in 'hich ydio 'as one o" thede"endants.K2L

Complainants #eco$nted that #espondent% as co$nsel "o# the de"endants% fled the ans'e#

to the complaint in the f#st ci(il case. S$bse


22/52


23/52

) ) ) $t still this cha#ge 'ill not p#ope# "o# lac! o" s$cient bases.

) ) ) Ci(il Case No. 99@% 'hich 'as commenced on +2 Octobe# :+++% o#th#ee yea#s since the complainants became o'ne#s o" ydio /alame&s p#ope#ties% isa s$it against the complainants% not as #ep#esentati(es o" ydio /alame% b$t aso'ne#s o" thei# #especti(e ali


24/52

disba#ment constit$te a c#ime% p#osec$tion "o# 'hich in a c#iminal p#oceeding isba##ed by limitation% aFect the disba#ment p#oceeding ) ) ) ?9 A-. JR. 5258K2+L

This doct#ine 'as #ea#med in the #elati(ely #ecent case o" Frias v. Bautista

!oadaK2*L'he#e the Co$#t held that R$le VII% Section * o" the R$les o" 4#oced$#e o" the CD7I4%'hich p#o(ides "o# a p#esc#ipti(e pe#iod "o# the fling o" administ#ati(e complaints againstla'ye#s% sho$ld be st#$c! do'n as (oid and o" no legal eFect "o# being ultra vires.K2:L

4#escinding "#om the $na(ailability o" the de"ense o" p#esc#iption% the Co$#t conc$#s 'iththe In(estigating Commissione#&s opinion that some o" the cha#ges #aised by complainants inthei# complaint a#e $ns$bstantiated.

The#e is% ho'e(e#% s$cient basis to hold #espondent acco$ntable "o# (iolation o" R$le*9.+2 o" the Code o" 4#o"essional Responsibility. ;hile this cha#ge 'as not #aised in the initiato#ypleading% it 'as p$t "o#'a#d in complainants& position pape# fled 'ith the I4 and in the petitionfled 'ith the Co$#t. In "act% #espondent p#oFe#ed his de"enses to the cha#ge in his position pape#be"o#e the I4 and li!e'ise in his comment be"o#e the Co$#t. In his (e#y f#st pleading be"o#e theI4% the ans'e# 'ith motion to dismiss% he denied ha(ing ydio as his client. S$ch absence o"atto#ney7client #elationship is the essential element o" his de"ense to the cha#ge o" conict o"

inte#est% as a#tic$lated in his s$bse


25/52

In the case at ba#% #espondent admitted ha(ing ointly #ep#esented ydio and Raleigh asde"endants in the f#st ci(il case. E(idently% the atto#ney7client #elation bet'een ydio and#espondent 'as established despite the "act that it 'as only Raleigh 'ho paid him. The caseo" 9ilado v. avidK52Ltells $s that it is immate#ial 'hethe# s$ch employment 'as paid% p#omisedo# cha#ged "o#.K55L

As de"ense co$nsel in the f#st ci(il case% #espondent ad(ocated the stance

that ydio solely o'ned the p#ope#ty s$bect o" the case. In the second ci(il case in(ol(ing thesame p#ope#ty% #espondent% as co$nsel "o# Raleigh and his spo$se% has p$#s$ed the inconsistentposition that Raleigh o'ned the same p#ope#ty in common 'ith ydio% 'ith complainants% 'hoinhe#ited the p#ope#ty% committing acts 'hich debase #espondent&s #ights as a co7o'ne#.

The "act that the atto#ney7client #elation had ceased by #eason o" ydio&s death o# th#o$ghthe completion o" the specifc tas! "o# 'hich #espondent 'as employed is not #eason "o##espondent to ad(ocate a position opposed to that o" ydio.K59L 4#ecedents tell $s that e(en a"te#the te#mination o" his employment% an atto#ney may not act as co$nsel against his client in thesame gene#al matte#% e(en tho$gh% 'hile acting "o# his "o#me# client% he ac


26/52

+ENEI!TO &ORNILLA an; ATTY. 'EERI!O . RI!A'ORT, complainants, vs.

ATTY. ERNESTO S. SALNAT, respondent.

R E S O L T I O N

YNARES-SANTIAGO,J.:

On No(embe# :*% *,,3% enedicto Bo#nilla and /ede#ico D. Rica"o#t fled an administ#ati(e

complaintK*L'ith the Integ#ated a# o" the 4hilippines ?I48 Commission on a# Discipline% against

#espondent Atty. E#nesto S. Sal$nat "o# illegal and $nethical p#actice and conict o"

inte#est. They alleged that #espondent is a membe# o" the ASSA a' and Associates% 'hich 'as

the #etained co$nsel o" the 4hilippine 4$blic School Teache#s Association ?44STA8. Respondent&s

b#othe#% A$#elio S. Sal$nat% 'as a membe# o" the 44STA oa#d 'hich app#o(ed #espondent&s

engagement as #etained co$nsel o" 44STA.

Complainants% 'ho a#e membe#s o" the 44STA% fled an int#a7co#po#ate case against its

membe#s o" the oa#d o" Di#ecto#s "o# the te#ms *,,:7*,,9 and *,,97*,,3 be"o#e the Sec$#ities

and E)change Commission% 'hich 'as doc!eted as SEC Case No. +97,37993% and a complaint

be"o#e the Oce o" the Omb$dsman% doc!eted as O- Case No. +7,37+,9% "o# $nla'"$l

spending and the $nde#(al$ed sale o" #eal p#ope#ty o" the 44STA. Respondent ente#ed his

appea#ance as co$nsel "o# the 44STA oa#d membe#s in the said cases. Complainants contend

that #espondent 'as g$ilty o" conict o" inte#est beca$se he 'as engaged by the 44STA% o" 'hich

complainants 'e#e membe#s% and 'as being paid o$t o" its co#po#ate "$nds 'he#e complainants

ha(e cont#ib$ted. Despite being told by 44STA membe#s o" the said conict o" inte#est%

#espondent #e"$sed to 'ithd#a' his appea#ance in the said cases.

-o#eo(e#% complainants a(e# that #espondent (iolated R$le *9.+K:Lo" the Code o"

4#o"essional Responsibility 'hen he appea#ed at the meeting o" the 44STA oa#d and ass$#ed its

membe#s that he 'ill 'in the 44STA cases.

In his Ans'e#%K2L#espondent st#essed that he ente#ed his appea#ance as co$nsel "o# the

44STA oa#d -embe#s "o# and in behal" o" the ASSA a' and Associates. As a pa#tne# in the said

la' f#m% he only fled a G-ani"estation o" E)t#eme #gencyH in O- Case No. +7,37+,9. K5L On

the othe# hand% SEC Case No. +97,37993 'as handled by anothe# pa#tne# o" the f#m% Atty.

Ag$stin V. Ag$stin. Respondent claims that it 'as complainant Atty. Rica"o#t 'ho instigated%

o#chest#ated and indisc#iminately fled the said cases against membe#s o" the 44STA and itsoa#d.

Respondent pointed o$t that his #elationship to A$#elio S. Sal$nat 'as immate#ial> and that

'hen he ente#ed into the #etaine# cont#act 'ith the 44STA oa#d% he did so% not in his indi(id$al

capacity% b$t in #ep#esentation o" the ASSA a' /i#m. Be denied that he ens$#ed the (icto#y o"

the 44STA oa#d in the case he 'as handling. Be me#ely ass$#ed the oa#d that the t#$th 'ill

come o$t and that the case be"o#e the Omb$dsman 'ill be dismissed "o# lac! o" $#isdiction%

conside#ing that #espondents the#ein a#e not p$blic ocials% b$t p#i(ate employees. Anent the

SEC case% #espondent alleged that the same 'as being handled by the la' f#m o" Atty. Ed$a#do

de -esa% and not ASSA.

y 'ay o" Special and A#mati(e De"enses% #espondent a(e##ed that complainant Atty.

Rica"o#t 'as himsel" g$ilty o" g#oss (iolation o" his oath o" oce amo$nting to g#oss miscond$ct%

malp#actice and $nethical cond$ct "o# fling t#$mped7$p cha#ges against him and Atty. De

-esa. Th$s% he p#ayed that the complaint against him be dismissed and% instead% complainant

Rica"o#t be disciplined o# disba##ed.

The complainant 'as doc!eted as CD Case No. ,3792* and #e"e##ed to the I4 Commission

on a# Discipline. A"te# in(estigation% Commissione# ydia A. Na(a##o #ecommended that
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jul2003/ac_5804.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jul2003/ac_5804.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jul2003/ac_5804.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jul2003/ac_5804.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jul2003/ac_5804.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jul2003/ac_5804.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jul2003/ac_5804.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jul2003/ac_5804.htm#_ftn4


27/52

#espondent be s$spended "#om the p#actice o" la' "o# si) ?8 months. The oa#d o" 1o(e#no#s

the#ea"te# adopted Resol$tion No. V72++27:2+ dated J$ne :,% :++:% app#o(ing the #epo#t and

#ecommendation o" the In(estigating Commissione#.

Respondent fled 'ith this Co$#t a -otion "o# Reconside#ation o" the abo(e Resol$tion o" the

I4 oa#d o" 1o(e#no#s.

The pe#tinent #$le o" the Code o" 4#o"essional Responsibility p#o(ides0

RE *9.+2. A la'ye# shall not #ep#esent conicting inte#ests e)cept by '#itten consent o" all

conce#ned gi(en a"te# a "$ll disclos$#e o" the "acts.

The#e is conict o" inte#est 'hen a la'ye# #ep#esents inconsistent inte#ests o" t'o o# mo#e

opposing pa#ties. The test is G'hethe# o# not in behal" o" one client% it is the la'ye#&s d$ty to

fght "o# an iss$e o# claim% b$t it is his d$ty to oppose it "o# the othe# client. In b#ie"% i" he a#g$es

"o# one client% this a#g$ment 'ill be opposed by him 'hen he a#g$es "o# the othe# client.H K9LThis

#$le co(e#s not only cases in 'hich confdential comm$nications ha(e been confded% b$t also

those in 'hich no confdence has been besto'ed o# 'ill be $sed. KLAlso% the#e is conict o"inte#ests i" the acceptance o" the ne' #etaine# 'ill #e and ?28 cont#ols and holds all p#ope#ty o" the co#po#ation.K,LIts membe#s ha(e been

cha#acte#i=ed as t#$stees o# di#ecto#s clothed 'ith a fd$cia#y cha#acte#. K*+LIt is clea#ly sepa#ate

and distinct "#om the co#po#ate entity itsel".

;he#e co#po#ate di#ecto#s ha(e committed a b#each o" t#$st eithe# by thei# "#a$ds% ultra

viresacts% o# negligence% and the co#po#ation is $nable o# $n'illing to instit$te s$it to #emedy

the '#ong% a stoc!holde# may s$e on behal" o" himsel" and othe# stoc!holde#s and "o# the beneft

o" the co#po#ation% to b#ing abo$t a #ed#ess o" the '#ong done di#ectly to the co#po#ation and

indi#ectly to the stoc!holde#s.K**LThis is 'hat is !no'n as a de#i(ati(e s$it% and settled is the

doct#ine that in a de#i(ati(e s$it% the co#po#ation is the #eal pa#ty in inte#est 'hile the

stoc!holde# fling s$it "o# the co#po#ation&s behal" is only nominal pa#ty. The co#po#ation sho$ldbe incl$ded as a pa#ty in the s$it.K*:L

Ba(ing th$s laid a s$itable "o$ndation o" the basic legal p#inciples pe#taining to de#i(ati(e

s$its% 'e come no' to the th#eshold the co#po#ation sho$ld be p#es$mpti(ely incapable o" gi(ing (alid

consent.K*2L?$nde#sco#ing o$#s8

In othe# $#isdictions% the p#e(ailing #$le is that a sit$ation 'he#ein a la'ye# #ep#esents both

the co#po#ation and its assailed di#ecto#s $na(oidably gi(es #ise to a conict o" inte#est. The

inte#est o" the co#po#ate client is pa#amo$nt and sho$ld not be in$enced by any inte#est o" the
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jul2003/ac_5804.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jul2003/ac_5804.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jul2003/ac_5804.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jul2003/ac_5804.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jul2003/ac_5804.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jul2003/ac_5804.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jul2003/ac_5804.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jul2003/ac_5804.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jul2003/ac_5804.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jul2003/ac_5804.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jul2003/ac_5804.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jul2003/ac_5804.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jul2003/ac_5804.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jul2003/ac_5804.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jul2003/ac_5804.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jul2003/ac_5804.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jul2003/ac_5804.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jul2003/ac_5804.htm#_ftn13


28/52


29/52

fled a case against he# 'hi le he 'as at that t ime #ep#esenting he# in anothe#case% and "o# committing othe# acts o" disloyalty and do$ble7dealing.

/#om J$ne :+++ to Jan$a#y :++*% the complainant 'as the p#esident andmanaging d i#ecto# o" A ll ied In(estigation $#ea$% Inc. ?AI8 % a "amily7o'nedco#po#ation engaged in p#o(iding sec$#ity and in(estigation se#(ices. She a(e#sthat she p#oc$#ed the legal se#(ices o" the #espondent not only "o# the co#po#ateaFai#s o" AI b$t also "o# he# pe#sonal case. 4a#tic$la#ly% the #espondent acted as

he# co$nsel o" #eco#d in an eectment case against Spo$ses Santiago and /lo#itaTo##oba f led by he# on :, Decembe# :+++ be"o#e the -et#opolitan T#ial Co$#t?-eTC8 o" 4a#aZa


30/52

anothe# sec$#ity agency% R-SI% and #ecommended his "o#me# la' pa#tne#% Atty.1e#a#do Be#nande=% to be its co#po#ate sec#eta#y and legal co$nsel and also 'henhe con"e##ed 'ith eodega#io to o#gani=e anothe# sec$#ity agency% SESSI% 'he#ethe #espondent became an inco#po#ato#% stoc!holde#% and p#esident. Th$s% thein(estigating commissione# #ecommended that the #espondent be s$spended "#omthe p#actice o" la' "o# one yea#.

The I4 oa#d o" 1o(e#no#s adopted and app#o(ed the in(estigating

commissione#&s #epo#t and #ecommendation% b$t #ed$ced the penalty "#om oneyea# to a ste#n #ep#imand. K3 L

T ::u n 5: 6a: : =5r 5 r:8on;n5 : ?u 5y o :6on;u65 or r8r:n5n? 6on65n? n5r:5: n 6on5ran5on o 5/a:6 5n5: o 5 ?a 8ro::on.

R$le *9.+2% Canon 9 o" the Code o" 4#o"essional Responsibility p#o(ides0 GAla'ye# shall not #ep#esent conicting inte#ests e)cept by '#itten consent o" al lconce#ned gi(en a"te# a "$l l disclos$#e o" the "acts.H This p#ohibition is "o$ndedon p#inciples o" p$blic policy and good taste. K@L In the co$#se o" a la'ye#7cl ient#elationship% the la'ye# lea#ns al l the "acts connected 'ith the cl ient&s case%incl$ding the 'ea! and st#ong points o" the case. The nat$#e o" that #elationship

is% the#e"o#e% one o" t#$st and confdence o" the highest deg#ee.K,L

It behoo(esla'ye#s not only to !eep in(iolate the cl ient&s confdence% b$t also to a(oid theappea#ance o" t #eache#y and do$ble7deal ing "o# only then can l it igants beenco$#aged to ent#$st thei # sec#ets to thei # la'ye#s% 'hich is o" pa#amo$ntimpo#tance in the administ#ation o" $stice. K *+L

In b#oad te#ms% la'ye#s a#e deemed to #ep#esent conicting inte#ests

'hen% in behal" o" one cl ient% i t is thei# d$ty to contend "o# that 'hich d$ty toanothe# cl ient #e


31/52

obliged to act eithe# as an ad(ise# o# ad(ocate "o# e(e#y pe#son 'ho may 'ish tobecome thei# c l ient. They ha(e the # ight to decl ine s$ch employment% s$bect%ho'e(e#% to Canon *5 o" the Code o" 4#o"essional Responsibility. K*3L Altho$gh the#ea#e instances 'he#e la'ye#s cannot decl ine #ep#esentation% K*@L they cannot bemade to l abo# $nde# con i ct o " in te #est bet'een a p #esent cl ient and ap#ospecti(e one. K*,L

Addit ional ly% in his posit ion pape#% the #espondent al leges that 'hen the

complainant in(ited the #espondent to oin R-SI% he G(ehemently #e"$sed to ointhem d$e to his pe#ception o" 6on65n? n5r:5 as he 'as then ?and sti l l is atp#esent8 the egal Co$nselH o" AI% 'hich is also a sec$#ity agency. K:+L To bolste#h is a llegat ion% he in(o!ed the a da(its o " complainant &s ' itnesses 'hichcontained statements o" his app#ehension o" conict o" inte#est sho$ld he oinR-SI. K:*L

S$#p#isingly% despite his app#ehension o# a'a#eness o" a possible conict o"inte#est sho$ld he oin R-SI% the #espondent late# al lo'ed himsel" to become aninco#po#ato#% stoc!holde#% and p#esident o" SESSI% 'hich is also a sec$#ity agency.Be $stifed his act by claiming that that 'hile both AI and SESSI a#e engaged in

sec$#ity agency b$siness% he is se#(ing in diF e#ent capacit ies. As the in7ho$selegal co$nsel o" AI% he Gse#(es its legal inte#est the pa#amete# o" 'hich e(ol(es

a#o$nd legal matte#sH s$ch as p#otect ing the legal # ights and inte#est o" theco#po#ation> cond$cting an in(estigation o# a hea#ing on (iolat ions o" company#$les and #eg$lations o" thei # o ce employees and sec$# ity g$a#ds> sendingdemand lette#s in col lect ion cases> and #ep#esent ing the co#po#at ion in anylit igation "o# o# against it. And as p#esident o" SESSI% he se#(es the ope#ationalaspects o" the b$siness s$ch as Gho' does it ope#ateKL% ho' m$ch do they p#icethei# se#(ices% 'hat !ind o# ho' do they t#ainKL thei# sec$#ity g$a#ds% ho' theysolicit cl ients.H Th$s% conict o" inte#est is "a#7"etched. -o#eo(e#% the #espondenta#g$es that the complainant% not being a stoc!holde# o" AI and SESSI% has no# ight to


32/52

'i"e can be p#es$med to be that o" con$gal pa#tne#ship o" gains> hence% themao#ity sha#es in AI and SESSI a#e the con$gal p#ope#ty o" eodega#io and his'i"e% the#eby placing themsel(es in possession o" an inte#est in mo#e than onesec$#ity agency in cont#a(ention o" R.A. No. 95@3. Th$s% in o#gani=ing SESSI% the#espondent (iolated R$le *.+:% Canon * o" the Code o" 4#o"essional Responsibility%'hich mandates la'ye#s to p #omote #espect "o# the la' and #e" #a in " #omco$nseling o# abetting acti(ities aimed at defance o" the la'.

As to the #ecommendation that the penalty be #ed$ced "#om a s$spension o"one yea# to a s te#n 'a#ning % 'e fnd the same to be ' i tho$t bas is . ;e a#edist$#bed by the #ed$ction made by the I4 oa#d o" 1o(e#no#s o" the penalty#ecommended by the in(estigating commissione# 'itho$t c lea#ly and dist inct lystating the "acts and #easons on 'hich that #ed$ction is based.

Section *:?a8% R$le *2,7 o" the R$les o" Co$#t #eads in pa#t as "ollo's0SEC. *:. Revie and decision b' the Board o0 *overnors .

?a8 E(e#y case hea#d by an in(estigato# shall be #e(ie'ed by the I4

oa#d o" 1o(e#no#s $pon the #eco#d and e(idence t#ansmitted to it bythe In(estigato# 'ith his #epo#t. The decision o" the oa#d $pon s$ch

#e(ie' shall be in '#iting and shall clea#ly and distinctly state the "actsand the #easons on 'hich it is based.

;e may conside# the #eso l$ ti on o" the I4 oa#d o" 1o(e#no#s as a

memo#and$m decis ion adopt ing by #e"e#ence the #epo#t o" the in(estigatingcommissione#. Bo'e(e#% 'e loo! 'ith dis"a(o# the change in the #ecommendedpenalty 'itho$t any e)planation the#e"o#. Again% 'e #emind the I4 oa#d o" 1o(e#no#s o" the impo#tance o" the #e


33/52

SECOND DIVISION

[A.!. No. 200. "ar6 , 199*]

I"ELA A. NAKPIL, complainant, vs. ATTY. !ARLOS J. (ALES, respondent.

E ! I S I O N

PNO,J.$

The "#iendship o" JOSE NA64I and #espondent CAROS J. VADES dates bac! to the Q9+s

d$#ing thei# schooldays in De a Salle and the 4hilippine a' School. Thei# closeness e)tended to

thei# "amilies and #espondent became the b$siness cons$ltant% la'ye# and acco$ntant o" the

Na!pils.

In *,9% Jose Na!pil became inte#ested in p$#chasing a s$mme# #esidence in -o#an St#eet%

ag$io City.K*L/o# lac! o" "$nds% he #e


34/52

It 'as the Na!pils 'ho occ$pied the -o#an s$mme# ho$se. ;hen Jose Na!pil died on J$ly @%

*,32% #espondent acted as the legal co$nsel and acco$ntant o" his 'ido'% complainant I-EDA

NA64I. On -a#ch ,% *,3% #espondent&s la' f#m% Ca#los J. Valdes M Associates% handled the

p#oceeding "o# the settlement o" Jose&s estate. Complainant 'as appointed as administ#ati) o"

the estate.

The o'ne#ship o" the -o#an p#ope#ty became an iss$e in the intestate p#oceedings. Itappea#s that #espondent e)cl$ded the -o#an p#ope#ty "#om the in(ento#y o" Jose&s estate. On

/eb#$a#y *2% *,3@% #espondent t#ans"e##ed his title to the -o#an p#ope#ty to his company% the

Ca(al Realty Co#po#ation.

On -a#ch :,% *,3,% complainant so$ght to #eco(e# the -o#an p#ope#ty by fling 'ith the then

Co$#t o" /i#st Instance ?C/I8 o" ag$io City an action "o# #econ(eyance 'ith damages against

#espondent and his co#po#ation. In de"ense% #espondent claimed absol$te o'ne#ship o(e# the

p#ope#ty and denied that a t#$st 'as c#eated o(e# it.

D$#ing the pendency o" the action "o# #econ(eyance% complainant fled this administ#ati(e

case to disba# the #espondent. She cha#ged that #espondent (iolated p#o"essional ethics 'henhe0

I. Assigned to his "amily co#po#ation the -o#an p#ope#ty ?&ulong Maula#8 'hich

belonged to the estate he 'as settling as its la'ye# and a$dito#.

II. E)cl$ded the -o#an p#ope#ty "#om the Qin(ento#y o" #eal estate p#ope#ties& he

p#epa#ed "o# a client7estate and% at the same time% cha#ged the loan sec$#ed to

p$#chase the said e)cl$ded p#ope#ty as a liability o" the estate% all "o# thep$#pose o" t#ans"e##ing the title to the said p#ope#ty to his "amily co#po#ation.

III. 4#epa#ed and de"ended moneta#y claims against the estate that #etained him as

its co$nsel and a$dito#.K:L

On the f#st cha#ge% complainant alleged that she accepted #espondent&s oFe# to se#(e as

la'ye# and a$dito# to settle he# h$sband&s estate. Respondent&s la' f#m then fled a petition "o#

settlement o" the estate o" the deceased Na!pil b$t did not incl$de the -o#an p#ope#ty in the

estate&s in(ento#y. Instead% #espondent t#ans"e##ed the p#ope#ty to his co#po#ation% Ca(al RealtyCo#po#ation% and title 'as iss$ed in its name. Complainant acc$sed #espondent o" malicio$sly

app#op#iating the p#ope#ty in t#$st !no'ing that it did not belong to him. She claimed that

#espondent has e)p#essly ac!no'ledged that the said p#ope#ty belonged to the late Na!pil in his

co##espondencesK2L'ith the ag$io City T#eas$#e# and the complainant.

On the second cha#ge% complainant alleged that #espondent&s a$diting f#m ?C. J. Valdes and

Co.% C4As8 e)cl$ded the -o#an p#ope#ty "#om the in(ento#y o" he# h$sband&s estate% yet incl$ded

in the claims against the estate the amo$nts o" 49%+++.++ and 439%+++.++% 'hich #espondent

#ep#esented as he# h$sband&s loans applied Gp#obably "o# the p$#chase o" a ho$se and lot in

-o#an St#eet% ag$io City.H

As to the thi#d cha#ge% complainant alleged that #espondent&s la' f#m ?Ca#los J. Valdes and

Associates8 fled the petition "o# the settlement o" he# h$sband&s estate in co$#t% 'hile

#espondent&s a$diting f#m ?C. J. Valdes M Co.% C4As8 acted as acco$ntant o" both the estate and

t'o o" its c#edito#s. She claimed that #espondent #ep#esented conicting inte#ests 'hen his

acco$nting f#m p#epa#ed the list o" claims o" c#edito#s Angel Na!pil and ENORN% Inc. against he#

h$sband&s estate 'hich 'as #ep#esented by #espondent&s la' f#m. Complainant a(e##ed that

the#e is no distinction bet'een #espondent&s la' and a$diting f#ms as #espondent is the senio#

and cont#olling pa#tne# o" both f#ms 'hich a#e ho$sed in the same b$ilding.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/mar1998/ac_2040.htm#_edn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/mar1998/ac_2040.htm#_edn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/mar1998/ac_2040.htm#_edn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/mar1998/ac_2040.htm#_edn3


35/52

;e #e


36/52

committed s$ch Gmiscond$ctH not as a la'ye# b$t as an acco$ntant 'ho acted as common

a$dito# o" the estate and its c#edito#s. Bence% he sho$ld be held acco$ntable in anothe# "o#$m.

On No(embe# *:% *,3,% complainant s$bmitted he# RE4.K3LShe maintained that the

pendency o" the #econ(eyance case is not p#e$dicial to the in(estigation o" he# disba#ment

complaint against #espondent "o# the iss$e in the latte# is not the o'ne#ship o" the -o#an

p#ope#ty b$t the ethics and mo#ality o" #espondent&s cond$ct as a C4A7la'ye#.

Complainant alleged that #espondent&s Anne)es to his Reply ?s$ch as the Statement o"

Assets M iability o" the Na!pils and the alance Sheet o" the Estate8 'hich sho'ed that

complainant did not claim o'ne#ship o" the -o#an p#ope#ty 'e#e all p#epa#ed by C. J. Valdes and

Co. as acco$ntant o" the estate o" Jose Na!pil and fled 'ith the intestate co$#t by C. J. Valdes

and Associates as co$nsel "o# the estate. She a(e##ed that these Anne)es 'e#e not p#oo"s that

#espondent o'ned the -o#an p#ope#ty b$t 'e#e pa#t o" #espondent&s scheme to #emo(e the

p#ope#ty "#om the estate and t#ans"e# it to his "amily co#po#ation. Complainant alleged that she

signed the doc$ments beca$se o" the p#o"essional co$nsel o" #espondent and his f#m that he#

signat$#e the#eon 'as #e


37/52

On appeal% the Co$#t o" Appeals #e(e#sed the t#ial co$#t. The appellate co$#t held that

#espondent 'as the absol$te o'ne# o" the -o#an p#ope#ty. The Decision 'as ele(ated to this

Co$#t.

On /eb#$a#y *@% *,@% d$#ing the pendency o" complainant&s appeal to this Co$#t% the OS1

s$bmitted its Repo#tK**Lon the disba#ment complaint. The OS1 #elied hea(ily on the decision o"

the Co$#t o" Appeals then pending #e(ie' by this Co$#t. The OS1 "o$nd that #espondent 'as notp$t on notice o" complainant&s claim o(e# the p#ope#ty. It opined that the#e 'as no t#$st

ag#eement c#eated o(e# the p#ope#ty and that #espondent 'as the absol$te o'ne# the#eo". Th$s%

it $pheld #espondent&s #ight to t#ans"e# title to his "amily co#po#ation. It also "o$nd no conict o"

inte#ests as the claimants 'e#e #elated to the late Jose Na!pil. The OS1 #ecommended the

dismissal o" the administ#ati(e case.

4#e"ato#ily% 'e note that the case at ba# p#esents a no(el sit$ation as it in(ol(es the

disba#ment o" a C4A7la'ye# "o# his demeano# in his acco$nting p#o"ession and la' p#actice in

connection 'ith the p#ope#ty o" his client.

As a #$le% a la'ye# is not ba##ed "#om dealing 'ith his client b$t the b$siness t#ansactionm$st be cha#acte#i=ed 'ith $tmost honesty and good "aith.K*:LThe meas$#e o" good "aith 'hich

an atto#ney is #e8. On 5 6on5rary,


38/52

late Jose Na!pil by his b#othe#% Angel Na!pil% 'hich 'as p#epa#ed by Ca#los J. Valdes M

Co.% the acco$nting f#m o" he#ein #espondent. E or 5 5o5a

oan o P10,000.00 an; 8ay a o 5 n5r:5: ;u on 5 no5:F = 5

r: o 5 a5 Jo: Na>8 =ou; 6on5nu 5o n 5 ;:8u5; 8ro8r5y or

D yar: =5ou5 runra5on :a or r?uar an5nan6 8 a; 5o r/ur: (a;: or : a;an6:, < < < (a;:

6ou; ara;y au5oa56ay a::u o=nr:8 o Pulong Maulap. In:5a;, 5

r;y o r:8on;n5: !aro: J. (a;: an; !aa Ra5y !or8ora5on =a: 5o8ro6; a?an:5 5 :5a5 o 5 a5 Jo: ". Na>8 an;4or 5 8ro8r5y

5:.H ?emphasis s$pplied8

In the said #econ(eyance case% 'e "$#the# #$led that complainant&s doc$menta#y e(idence

?E)hibits GBH% GJH and GH8% 'hich she also add$ced in this administ#ati(e case% sho$ld estop

#espondent "#om claiming that he bo$ght the -o#an p#ope#ty "o# himsel"% and not me#ely in t#$st

"o# Jose Na!pil.K*@L

It o$ght to "ollo' that #espondent&s act o" e)cl$ding -o#an p#ope#ty "#om the estate 'hich his

la' f#m 'as #ep#esenting e(inces a lac! o" fdelity to the ca$se o" his client. I" #espondent t#$ly

belie(ed that the said p#ope#ty belonged to him% he sho$ld ha(e at least in"o#med complainant o"

his ad(e#se claim. I" they co$ld not ag#ee on its o'ne#ship% #espondent sho$ld ha(e "o#mally

p#esented his claim in the intestate p#oceedings instead o" t#ans"e##ing the p#ope#ty to his o'n

co#po#ation and concealing it "#om complainant and the $dge in the estate p#oceedings.

Respondent&s mis$se o" his legal e)pe#tise to dep#i(e his client o" the -o#an p#ope#ty is clea#ly

$nethical.

To ma!e matte#s 'o#se% #espondent% th#o$gh his acco$nting f#m% cha#ged the t'o loans

o" 49%+++.++ and 439%+++.++ as liability o" the estate% a"te# said loans 'e#e obtained by#espondent "o# the p$#chase and #eno(ation o" the p#ope#ty 'hich he claimed "o# himsel".

Respondent see!s to e)c$lpate himsel" "#om this cha#ge by disclaiming !no'ledge o# p#i(ity in

the p#epa#ation o" the list o" the estate&s liabilities. Be theo#i=es that the incl$sion o" the loans

m$st ha(e been a me#e e##o# o# o(e#sight o" his acco$nting f#m. It is clea# that the in"o#mation

as to ho' these t'o loans sho$ld be t#eated co$ld ha(e only come "#om #espondent himsel" as

the said loans 'e#e in his name. Bence% the s$pposed e##o# o" the acco$nting f#m in cha#ging

#espondent&s loans against the estate co$ld not ha(e been committed 'itho$t #espondent&s

pa#ticipation. Respondent 'anted to Gha(e his ca!e and eat it tooH and s$bo#dinated the inte#est

o" his client to his o'n pec$nia#y gain. Respondent (iolated Canon *3 o" the Code o" 4#o"essional

Responsibility 'hich p#o(ides that a la'ye# o'es fdelity to his client&s ca$se and enoins him tobe mind"$l o" the t#$st and confdence #eposed on him.

As #ega#ds the thi#d cha#ge% 'e hold that #espondent is g$ilty o" #ep#esenting conicting

inte#ests. It is gene#ally the #$le% based on so$nd p$blic policy% that an atto#ney cannot #ep#esent

ad(e#se inte#ests. It is highly imp#ope# to #ep#esent both sides o" an iss$e. K*,LThe p#osc#iption

against #ep#esentation o" conicting inte#ests fnds application 'he#e the conicting inte#ests

a#ise 'ith #espect to the same gene#al matte#K:+Land is applicable ho'e(e# slight s$ch ad(e#se

inte#est may be. It applies altho$gh the atto#ney&s intentions and moti(es 'e#e honest and he

acted in good "aith.K:*LBo'e(e#% #ep#esentation o" conicting inte#ests may be allo'ed 'he#e the
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/mar1998/ac_2040.htm#_edn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/mar1998/ac_2040.htm#_edn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/mar1998/ac_2040.htm#_edn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/mar1998/ac_2040.htm#_edn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/mar1998/ac_2040.htm#_edn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/mar1998/ac_2040.htm#_edn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/mar1998/ac_2040.htm#_edn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/mar1998/ac_2040.htm#_edn21


39/52


40/52

and $ndesi#able as it placed #espondent&s and his la' f#m&s loyalty $nde# a clo$d o" do$bt. E(en

g#anting that #espondent&s miscond$ct #e"e#s to his acco$ntancy p#actice% it 'o$ld not p#e(ent

this Co$#t "#om disciplining him as a membe# o" the a#. The #$le is settled that a la'ye# may be

s$spended o# disba##ed "o# AN miscond$ct% e(en i" it pe#tains to his p#i(ate acti(ities% as long as

it sho's him to be 'anting in mo#al cha#acte#% honesty% p#obity o# good demeano#. K:3L4ossession

o" good mo#al cha#acte# is not only a p#e#e


41/52

Rep$blic o" the 4hilippines

SPRE"E !ORT

ag$io City

TBIRD DIVISION

A.!. No. ))91 A8r 27, 2007

ATTY. GEORGE !. +RIONES, Complainant% (s.

ATTY. JA!INTO . JI"ENE#,Respondent.

R E S O T I O N

ASTRIA-"ARTINE#,J.$

The #oot o" he#ein administ#ati(e complaint "o# Disba#ment*dated A$g$st *:% :++5 fled by Atty.

1eo#ge S. #iones cha#ging Atty. Jacinto D. Jimene= 'ith (iolation o" Re(ised Ci#c$la# No. :@7,* on

"o#$m7shopping and R$le *,.+* and R$le *:.+@ o" the Code o" 4#o"essional Responsibility% is the Ap#il

2% :++: O#de# o" the Regional T#ial Co$#t ?RTC8 o" -anila in S4 4#oc. No. ,,7,:@3+% entitled% [In the

-atte# o" the 4etition "o# the Allo'ance o" the ;ill o" $= J. Benson[% to 'it0

IN VIE; O/ TBE /ORE1OIN1% the co$#t he#eby0

*. Reite#ates its designation o" the acco$nting f#m o" -ess#s. Alba% Romeo M Co. to

immediately cond$ct an a$dit o" the administ#ation by Atty. 1eo#ge S. #iones o" the estate o"the late $= J. Benson% the e)penses o" 'hich shall be cha#ged against the estate.

:. S$spends the app#o(al o" the #epo#t o" the special administ#ato# e)cept the payment o" his

commission 'hich is he#eby f)ed at *.@ o" the (al$e o" the estate.

2. Di#ects the special administ#ato# to deli(e# the #esid$e to the hei#s in p#opo#tion to thei#

sha#es. /#om the sha#e o" ilia J. Benson7C#$=% the#e shall be ded$cted the ad(ances made to

he#.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Complainant Atty. #iones is the Special Administ#ato# o" the Estate o" $= J. Benson. Respondent Atty.

Jacinto D. Jimene= is the co$nsel "o# the Bei#s o" the late $= J. Benson ?Bei#s8.

On Ap#il ,% :++:% Atty. Jimene= fled 'ith the RTC a notice o" appeal "#om the O#de# dated Ap#il 2%

:++:%


42/52

:++:% appointing the f#m o" Alba% Romeo M Co. to cond$ct an a$dit at the e)pense o" the late $= J.

Benson% as 'ell as the O#de# dated Ap#il 2% :++:% inso"a# as it denied thei# motion "o#

#ecommendation.2

On J$ly :% :++:% Atty. Jimene= fled 'ith the CA a 4etition "o# Mandamus% doc!eted as CA71.R. No.

3*@55%5alleging that the #espondent J$dge the#ein $nla'"$lly #e"$sed to comply 'ith his ministe#ial

d$ty to app#o(e thei# appeal 'hich 'as pe#"ected on time. 9

Atty. #iones% in his Comment% contends that the hei#s o" the late $= J. Benson% #ep#esented by Atty.

Jimene=% a#e g$ilty o" "o#$m shopping "o# 'hich #eason% the petition sho$ld be dismissed.

On /eb#$a#y **% :++2% the CA 'itho$t to$ching on the "o#$m shopping iss$e% g#anted the petition and

o#de#ed the #espondent J$dge to gi(e d$e co$#se to the appeal ta!en by Atty. Jimene= "#om the O#de#

dated Ap#il 2% :++:% inso"a# as it di#ected the payment o" commission to Atty. #iones.3

Atty. #iones then fled 'ith this Co$#t a 4etition "o# Re(ie' on Certiorari$nde# R$le 59 o" the R$les o"

Co$#t% doc!eted as 1.R. No. *9,*2+% p#aying "o# the dismissal o" the appeal "#om the O#de# dated

Ap#il 2% :++:% inso"a# as it o#de#ed the payment o" commission to him% as the Special Administ#ato# o"

the estate o" the deceased $= J. Benson.@

The Co$#t ga(e d$e co$#se to the petition and #e #e"e##ed said Complaint to the

Oce o" the a# Confdant ?OC8> and #e


43/52

Respondent fled his Comment on Ap#il % :++9. Be contends that 'hen he assisted the Bei#s in fling

a c#iminal case against complainant% he 'as me#ely "$lflling his legal d$ty to ta!e the necessa#y

steps to p#otect the inte#ests o" his clients> that it cannot se#(e as basis "o# fling an administ#ati(e

case against him.*:Respondent "$#the# cites Santiago v. Ra0anan*2'he#e the Co$#t absol(ed the

#espondent la'ye# "#om administ#ati(e liability in s$bmitting an ada(it in a p#elimina#y in(estigation

in de"ense o" his clients.

On Jan$a#y 2*% :++3% the OC s$bmitted its Repo#t and Recommendation #ecommending that the

administ#ati(e complaint against Atty. Jimene= be dismissed "o# lac! o" me#it.*5

The Co$#t ag#ees 'ith the OC that #espondent is not g$ilty o" "o#$m shopping. Reco#ds sho' that

#espondent% as co$nsel "o# the hei#s o" the late $= J. Benson% fled a special ci(il action doc!eted as

CA71.R. S4 No. 3+25, assailing the O#de# o" -a#ch *:% :++: appointing the acco$nting f#m o" Alba%

Romeo and Co. as a$dito#> and% a #eg$la# appeal doc!eted as CA71.R. S4 No. 3*5@@ assailing the

O#de# o" Ap#il 2% :++:% inso"a# as it di#ected the payment o" commission to complainant. It is e(ident

that the#e is identity o" pa#ties /u5 ;rn5 6au:: o a65on an; r: :ou?5. Bence%

#espondent is not g$ilty o" "o#$m shopping.*9The Co$#t li!e'ise fnds no "a$lt on the pa#t o"

#espondent in e)ec$ting an ada(it in s$ppo#t o" the c#iminal complaint as held in the Santiagocase.

Bo'e(e#% the#e is s$cient g#o$nd in s$ppo#t o" complainant&s claim that #espondent (iolated R$le

*,.+* o" the Code o" 4#o"essional Responsibility. Reco#ds #e(eal that be"o#e #espondent assisted the

Bei#s in fling the c#iminal complaint against he#ein complainant% he sent demand lette#s to the latte#

to comply 'ith the O#de# o" J$dge Tipon to deli(e# the #esid$e o" the estate to the hei#s o" the late $=

J. Benson. Conside#ing that complainant did not #eply to the demand lette#s% #espondent opted to fle

said c#iminal complaint in behal" o" his clients "o# #e"$sal to obey the la'"$l o#de# o" the co$#t.

The O#de# #e"e##ed to is the thi#d pa#t o" the assailed O#de# dated Ap#il 2% :++: 'hich di#ects

complainant to deli(e# the #esid$e to the Bei#s in p#opo#tion to thei# sha#es. As aptly pointed o$t by

complainant% #espondent sho$ld ha(e f#st fled the p#ope# motion 'ith the RTC "o# e)ec$tion o" thethi#d pa#t o" said O#de# instead o" immediately #eso#ting to the fling o" c#iminal complaint against

him. A me#e pe#$sal o" the #est o" the O#de# dated Ap#il 2% :++: #eadily discloses that the app#o(al o"

the #epo#t o" complainant as Special Administ#ato# 'as s$spended p#io# to the a$dit o" the

administ#ation o" complainant. Conse


44/52

o" the la'ye# as an oce# o" the co$#t and a membe# o" the ba#. Acco#dingly% disba#ment sho$ld not

be dec#eed 'he#e any p$nishment less se(e#e s$ch as #ep#imand% s$spension% o# fne 'o$ld

accomplish the end desi#ed.*@

%&ERE'ORE,Atty. Jacinto D. Jimene= is "o$nd ?u5y o" and REPRI"ANE"o# (iolation o" R$le

*,.+* o" the Code o" 4#o"essional Responsibility.

SO ORERE.

/IRST DIVISION

[A.!. NO. )711 $ Juy 3, 2007]

"A. LISA &AJLA,Com#lainant% v.ATTY. RO!ELES '. "AIANA,Res#ondent.

E ! I S I O N

GAR!IA,J.$

nde# conside#ation is Resol$tion No. VI7:++5753: o" the oa#d o" 1o(e#no#s% Integ#ated a# o"

the 4hilippines ?I48% #elati(e to the complaint "o# disba#ment fled by he#ein complainant -a.

$isa Bad$la against #espondent Atty. Roceles /. -adianda.

The case sta#ted 'hen% in an$FF1$/1TCM&!$1+T*bea#ing date Septembe# 3% :++: and fled

'ith the I4 Commission on a# Discipline% complainant cha#ged Atty. Roceles /. -adianda 'ith(iolation o" A#ticle :+,:o" the Re(ised 4enal Code and Canon Nos. *9.+: and :*.+: o" the Code

o" 4#o"essional Responsibility.

In said ada(it7complaint% complainant alleged that she and #espondent $sed to be "#iends as

they both 'o#!ed at the $#ea$ o" /i#e 4#otection ?/48 'he#eat #espondent 'as the Chie" egal

Oce# 'hile she 'as the Chie" N$#se o" the -edical% Dental and N$#sing Se#(ices. Complainant

claimed that% sometime in *,,@% she app#oached #espondent "o# some legal ad(ice. Complainant

"$#the# alleged that% in the co$#se o" thei# con(e#sation 'hich 'as s$pposed to be !ept
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/apr2007/ac_6691_2007.html#fnt18http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2007/jul2007/ac_6711_2007.php#fnt1http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2007/jul2007/ac_6711_2007.php#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/apr2007/ac_6691_2007.html#fnt18http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2007/jul2007/ac_6711_2007.php#fnt1http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2007/jul2007/ac_6711_2007.php#fnt2


45/52

confdential% she disclosed pe#sonal sec#ets and p#od$ced copies o" a ma##iage cont#act% a bi#th

ce#tifcate and a baptismal ce#tifcate% only to be in"o#med late# by the #espondent that she

?#espondent8 'o$ld #e"e# the matte# to a la'ye# "#iend. It 'as malicio$s% so complainant states%

o" #espondent to ha(e #e"$sed handling he# case only a"te# she had al#eady hea#d he# sec#ets.

Contin$ing% complainant a(e##ed that he# "#iendship 'ith #espondent so$#ed a"te# he# fling% in

the late# pa#t o" :+++% o" c#iminal and disciplina#y actions against the latte#. ;hat% pe#complainantXs acco$nt% p#ecipitated the fling 'as 'hen #espondent% then a membe# o" the /4

p#omotion boa#d% demanded a cell$la# phone in e)change "o# the complainantXs p#omotion.

Acco#ding to complainant% #espondent% in #etaliation to the fling o" the a"o#esaid actions% fled a

CONTER CO-4AINT2'ith the Omb$dsman cha#ging he# ?complainant8 'ith (iolation o" Section

2?a8 o" Rep$blic Act No. 2+*,%5"alsifcation o" p$blic doc$ments and immo#ality% the last t'o

cha#ges being based on the disclos$#es complainant ea#lie# made to #espondent. And also on the

basis o" the same disclos$#es% complainant "$#the# stated% a disciplina#y case 'as also instit$ted

against he# be"o#e the 4#o"essional Reg$lation Commission.

Complainant see!s the s$spension andPo# disba#ment o" #espondent "o# the latte#Xs act o"disclosing pe#sonal sec#ets and confdential in"o#mation she #e(ealed in the co$#se o" see!ing

#espondentXs legal ad(ice.

In an o#de# dated Octobe# :% :++:% the I4 Commission on a# Discipline #e


46/52

(iolated legal ethics 'hen she [K#e(ealedL in"o#mation gi(en to he# d$#ing a legal cons$ltation%[

and acco#dingly #ecommended that #espondent be #ep#imanded the#e"o#% th$s0

;BERE/ORE% p#emises conside#ed% it is #espect"$lly #ecommended that #espondent Atty. Roceles

-adianda be #ep#imanded "o# #e(ealing the sec#ets o" the complainant.

On No(embe# 5% :++5% the I4 oa#d o" 1o(e#no#s iss$ed Resol$tion No. VI7:++5753: #eading as"ollo's0

RESOVED to ADO4T and A44ROVE% as it is he#eby ADO4TED and A44ROVED% the Repo#t and

Recommendation o" the In(estigating Commissione# o" the abo(e7entitled case% he#ein made pa#t

o" this Resol$tion as Anne) [A[> and% fnding the #ecommendation "$lly s$ppo#ted by the

e(idence on #eco#d and the applicable la's and #$les% and conside#ing the act$ation o" #e(ealing

in"o#mation gi(en to #espondent d$#ing a legal cons$ltation% Atty. Roceles -adianda is

he#eby REPRI"ANE.

;e AGREE'ith the #ecommendation and the p#emises holding it togethe#.

As it 'e#e% complainant 'ent to #espondent% a la'ye# 'ho incidentally 'as also then a "#iend% to

ba#e 'hat she conside#ed pe#sonal sec#ets and sensiti(e doc$ments "o# the p$#pose o" obtaining

legal ad(ice and assistance. The moment complainant app#oached the then #ecepti(e

#espondent to see! legal ad(ice% a (e#itable la'ye#7client #elationship e(ol(ed bet'een the t'o.

S$ch #elationship imposes $pon the la'ye# ce#tain #est#ictions ci#c$msc#ibed by the ethics o" the

p#o"ession. Among the b$#dens o" the #elationship is that 'hich enoins the la'ye#% #espondent in

this instance% to !eep in(iolate confdential in"o#mation ac


47/52

The p$#pose o" the #$le o" confdentiality is act$ally to p#otect the client "#om possible b#each o"

confdence as a #es$lt o" a cons$ltation 'ith a la'ye#.

The se#io$sness o" the #espondentXs oFense not'ithstanding% the Co$#t "eels that the#e is #oom

"o# compassion% absent compelling e(idence that the #espondent acted 'ith ill7'ill. ;itho$t

meaning to condone the e##o# o" #espondentXs 'ays% 'hat at bottom is be"o#e the Co$#t is t'o

"o#me# "#iends becoming bitte# enemies and fling cha#ges and co$nte#7cha#ges against eachothe# $sing 'hate(e# con(enient tools and data 'e#e #eadily a(ailable. n"o#t$nately% the

pe#sonal in"o#mation #espondent gathe#ed "#om he# con(e#sati

cases in legal ethics.docx

Documents