8/3/2019 CASES 01-22-2012

1/45

SECOND DIVISION

HUMBERTO C. LIM, JR., A.C. No. 5303in behalf of PENTA RESORTS

CORPORATION/Attorney-in-Fact of LUMOT A. JALANDONI,Complainant, Present:

PUNO,J., Chairperson,

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ,- v e r s u s - CORONA,

AZCUNA and GARCIA,JJ.ATTY. NICANOR V. VILLAROSA,

Respondent. Promulgated:

June 15, 2006x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

R E S O L U T I O NCORONA,J.

Humberto C. Lim Jr.[1] filed a verified complaint for disbarment against respondent Atty.Nicanor V. Villarosa on July 7, 2000.[2] On February 19, 2002, respondent moved for theconsolidation of the said complaint with the following substantially interrelated cases earlierfiled with the First Division of this Court:

1. Administrative Case No. 5463: Sandra F. Vaflor v. Atty. AdoniramP. Pamplona and Atty. Nicanor V. Villarosa;

2. Administrative Case No. 5502: Daniel A. Jalandoni v. Atty. NicanorV. Villarosa.

In a resolution dated February 24, 2003, this Court considered Administrative Case No.

5463 closed and terminated.[3] On February 4, 2004, considering the pleadings filed inAdministrative Case No. 5502, the Court resolved:

(a) to NOTE the notice of the resolution dated September 27, 2003 ofthe Integrated Bar of the Philippines dismissing the case againstrespondent for lack of merit; and

(b) to DENY, for lack of merit, the petition filed by complainant

praying that the resolution of the Integrated Bar of the Philippinesdismissing the instant case be reviewed and that proper sanctions beimposed upon respondent.[4]

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn1

8/3/2019 CASES 01-22-2012

2/45

No motion for reconsideration of the aforesaid denial in Administrative Case No. 5502appears in the records. The Court is now called upon to determine the merits of thisremaining case (A.C. No. 5303) against respondent.

The complaint read:

AS FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

xxx xxx xxx

- II -

That respondent is a practicing lawyer and a member of the IntegratedBar of the Philippines, Bacolod City, Negros Occidental Chapter. Thatsometime on September 19, 1997, Lumot A. Jalandoni, Chairman/President ofPRC was sued before RTC, Branch 52 in Civil Case No. 97-9865, RE: Cabiles etal. vs. Lumot Jalandoni, et al. The latter engaged the legal services of hereinrespondent who formally entered his appearance on October 2, 1997 ascounsel for the defendants Lumot A. Jalandoni/Totti Anlap Gargoles.Respondent as a consequence of said Attorney-Client relationship representedLumot A. Jalandoni et al in the entire proceedings of said case. Utmost trustand confidence was reposed on said counsel, hence delicate and confidentialmatters involving all the personal circumstances of his client were entrustedto the respondent. The latter was provided with all the necessary informationrelative to the property in question and likewise on legal matters affecting thecorporation (PRC) particularly [involving] problems [which affect] HotelAlhambra. Said counsel was privy to all transactions and affairs of thecorporation/hotel.

- III -

That it was respondent who exclusively handled the entireproceedings of afore-cited Civil Case No. 97-9865 [and] presented Lumot A.

Jalandoni as his witness prior to formally resting his case. However, on April27, 1999 respondent, without due notice prior to a scheduled hearing,surprisingly filed a Motion to withdraw as counsel, one day before itsscheduled hearing on April 28, 1999. A careful perusal of said Motion toWithdraw as Counsel will conclusively show that no copy thereof wasfurnished to Lumot A. Jalandoni, neither does it bear her conformity. Nodoubt, such notorious act of respondent resulted to (sic) irreparable damageand injury to Lumot A. Jalandoni, et al since the decision of the court RTC,Branch 52 proved adverse to Lumot A. Jalandoni, et al. The far reachingeffects of the untimely and unauthorized withdrawal by respondent caused

irreparable damage and injury to Lumot A. Jalandoni, et al; a highlymeritorious case in favor of his client suddenly [suffered] unexpected defeat.

- IV -

That the grounds alleged by respondent for his withdrawal as counselof Lumot A. Jalandoni, et al. was that he is [a] retained counsel of Dennis G.

Jalbuena and the Fernando F. Gonzaga, Inc. It was Dennis G. Jalbuena who

8/3/2019 CASES 01-22-2012

3/45

recommended him to be the counsel of Lumot A. Jalandoni, et al. It is worthyto note that from the outset, respondent already knew that Dennis G. Jalbuenais the son-in-law of Lumot A. Jalandoni being married to her eldest daughter,Carmen J. Jalbuena. The other directors/officers of PRC were comprised of theeldest sibling of the remaining children of Lumot A. Jalandoni made inaccordance with her wishes, with the exception of Carmen J. Jalbuena, the

only daughter registered as one of the incorporators of PRC, obviously, beingthe author of the registration itself [sic]. Respondent further stated that hecannot refuse to represent Dennis G. Jalbuena in the case filed against thelatter before the City Prosecutors Office by PRC/Lumot A. Jalandoni due to analleged retainership agreement with said Dennis G. Jalbuena. [He] likewiserepresented Carmen J. Jalbuena and one Vicente Delfin when PRC filed thecriminal complaint against them. On April 06, 1999, twenty-one (21) daysprior to respondents filing of his Motion to Withdraw as Counsel of Lumot A.

Jalandoni, et al., respondent entered his appearance with Bacolod CityProsecutor OIC-Vicente C. Acupan, through a letterexpressly statingthateffective said date he was appearing as counsel for both Dennis G. Jalbuenaand Carmen J. Jalbuena and Vicente Delfin in the Estafa case filed by thecorporation (PRC) against them. Simply stated, as early as April 6,1999 respondent already appeared for and in behalf of the Sps. Carmen andDennis Jalbuena/Vicente Delfin while concurrently representing Lumot A.

Jalandoni, et al. in Civil Case No. 97-9865. However, despite being fullyaware that the interest of his client Lumot A. Jalandoni [holding an equivalentof Eighty-two (82%) percent of PRCs shares of stocks] and the interest of PRCare one and the same, notwithstanding the fact that Lumot A. Jalandoni wasstill his client in Civil Case No. 97-9862, respondent opted to representopposing clients at the same time. The corporations complaint for estafa(P3,183,5525.00) was filed against the Sps. Dennis and Carmen J. Jalbuenatogether with UCPB bank manager Vicente Delfin. Succeeding events willshow that respondent instead of desisting from further violation of his[lawyers] oath regarding fidelity to his client, with extreme arrogance,blatantly ignored our laws on Legal Ethics, by palpably and despicablydefending the Sps. Dennis and Carmen J. Jalbuena in all the cases filed againstthem by PRC through its duly authorized representatives, before the PublicProsecutors Office, Bacolod City (PP vs. Sps. Dennis and Carmen J. Jalbuenafor False Testimony/Perjury, viol. of Art. 183 RPC under BC I.S. No. 2000-2304;viol. of Art. 363, 364, 181 and 183 RPC under BC I.S. 2000-2343, PP vs.Carmen J. Jalbuena for viol. of Art. 315 under BC I.S. 2000-2125 and variousother related criminal cases against the Sps. Dennis and Carmen Jalbuena).

AS SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

xxx xxx xxx

- I -

xxx xxx xxx

There is no dispute that respondent was able to acquire vast resourcesof confidential and delicate information on the facts and circumstances of[Civil Case No. 97-9865] when Lumot A. Jalandoni was his client whichknowledge and information was acquired by virtue of lawyer-clientrelationship between respondent and his clients. Using the said classifiedinformation which should have been closely guarded respondent did then

8/3/2019 CASES 01-22-2012

4/45

and there, willfully, unlawfully, feloniously conspired and confabulated withthe Sps. Dennis and Carmen J. Jalbuena in concocting the despicable andfabricated charges against his former clients denominated as PP vs. Lumot A.

Jalandoni, Pamela J. Yulo, Cristina J. Lim and Leica J. Lim for viol. of Art. 172 ofRevised Penal Code due to a board resolution executed by the corporationwhich the Sps. Jalbuena, with the assistance of herein respondent, claimed to

have been made without an actual board meeting due to an alleged lack ofquorum, [among other things]. Were it not for said fiduciary relation betweenclient and lawyer, respondent will not be in a position to furnish hisconspirator spouses with confidential information on Lumot A. Jalandoni/PRC,operator of Alhambra Hotel.

- II -

Adding insult to injury, respondent opted to deliberately withhold theentire case file including the marked exhibits of the Cabiles case for morethan three (3) months after his untimely unilateral withdrawal therefrom,despite repeated demands from [his] client. On July 26, 1999, capitalizing onhis knowledge of the indispensability of said documents particularly themarked exhibits, which deadline to file the formal offer of exhibits wascontinually impressed upon the new counsel by the court, respondentsuddenly interposed an amount of five thousand (P5,000.00) pesos asconsideration prior to or simultaneous to the turnover of said documents.[On] July 29, 1999, left with no other alternative owing to the urgency of thesituation, PRC issued Check No. 2077686 for P5,000.00 in paymentthereof. This was duly received by respondents office on the same date.Such dilatory tactics employed by respondent immensely weakened the caseof Lumot A. Jalandoni eventually resulting to (sic) an adverse decision against[her].

Further demonstrating before this Honorable Court the notoriety ofrespondent in representing conflicting interest which extended even beyondthe family controversy was his improper appearance in court in Civil Case No.99-10660, RE: Amy Albert Que vs. Penta Resorts Corp., this time favoring theparty opponent of defendant who is even outside the family circle. During thepre-trial hearing conducted on May 5, 1999, while still [holding] exclusivepossession of the entire case file of his client in Civil Case No. 97-9865,respondent brazenly positioned himself beside Atty. Adoniram P. Pamplona,counsel of plaintiff [in] a suit against his client Lumot A. Jalandoni/PRC,coaching said counsel on matters [he was privy to] as counsel of saidclient. Facts mentioned by said counsel of the plaintiff starting from the lastpar. of page 25 until and including the entire first par. of page 26 were theexact words dictated by respondent. The entire incident was personallywitnessed by herein complainant [who was] only an arms length away from

them during the hearing. However, the particular portion showing the saidirregular acts of respondent was deliberately excluded by the courtstenographer from the transcript, despite her detailed recollection andaffirmation thereof to herein complainant. This prompted the new counsel ofLumot A. Jalandoni/PRC to complain to the court why Atty. Nicanor Villarosawas coaching Atty. Pamplona in such proceedings. Said corrections wereonly effected after repeated demands to reflect the actual events which[transpired] on said pre-trial.[5](emphasis ours)

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn5

8/3/2019 CASES 01-22-2012

5/45

In an addendum to the July 4, 2000 complaint, Lim also pointed to certain acts of

respondent which allegedly violated the Rules of Court perpetration of falsehood andabuse of his influence as former public prosecutor. These supposedly affected the status ofthe cases that Lim filed against the clients of respondent.[6]

In a motion to dismiss dated October 30, 2000, respondent claimed that thecomplainant violated Circular No. 48-2000 because, in his verification, Lim stated:

3. That [he] prepared this instant complaint for disbarment against Atty.Nicanor V. Villarosa, read its contents, the same are all true and correct to[his] own personal knowledge and belief.[7] (emphasis ours)

Section 4, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court explicitly provides that:

SEC. 4. Verification. Except when otherwise specifically required by

law or rule, pleadings need not be under oath, verified or accompanied byaffidavit. (5a)

A pleading is verified by an affidavit that the affiant has read thepleading and that the allegations therein are true and correct of his personalknowledge or based on authentic records.

A pleading required to be verified which contains verificationbased on information and belief or upon knowledge, informationand belief, or lacks a proper verification, shall be treated as anunsigned pleading. (As amended, A.M. 00-2-10, May 1, 2000.) (emphasisours)

While the Rules provide that an unsigned pleading produces no legal effect, [8] thecourt may, in its discretion, allow such deficiency to be remedied if it appears that the samewas due to mere inadvertence and not intended for delay.[9] We find that Lim was not shownto have deliberately filed the pleading in violation of the Rules.

In his comment dated December 1, 2000, respondent, reiterating his ground for thedismissal of the complaint, added:

[that] complainant Humberto C. Lim, Jr. has not only violated the Rule on CivilProcedure but he was/is NOT duly authorize[d] by the Penta Resorts Corp.(PRC) nor [by] Lumot A. Jalandoni to file this complaint against [him]. Neither[was Lim] a proper party to file this complaint. This fact is an additionalground to have his case dismissed because Humberto C. Lim Jr. exceededwhatever authority was granted to him as embodied in a resolution and the

Special Power of Attorney allegedly granted to him by the complainants.[10]

To bolster his assertion that the complaint against him was unfounded, respondentpresented the following version in his defense:

FACTS OF THE CASE

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn10

8/3/2019 CASES 01-22-2012

6/45

xxx xxx xxx

That Mrs. Jalandoni has two sons-in-law, namely Dennis G. Jalbuenamarried to her daughter, Carmen J. Jalbuena, and Humberto C. Lim Jr., theherein complainant married to her daughter, Cristina J. Lim.

That Mrs. Lumot Jalandoni organized a corporation namely the PentaResorts Corporation (PRC) where she owned almost ninety seven percent(97%). In other words, in reality, Penta Resorts Corporation is a singleproprietorship belonging to Mrs. Jalandoni. That the only property of thecorporation is as above-stated, the Alhambra Hotel, constructed solelythrough the effort of the spouses Jalbuena on that parcel of land now claimedby the Cabiles family.

That sometime on the year 1997 the case above-cited (Civil Case No.97-9865) was filed before the court against the sisters.

That [he], being RETAINED counsel of the spouses Dennis and CarmenJ. Jalbuena was RECOMMENDED by the spouses to the sisters to answer thecomplaint filed against them.

II.

That as counsel to the sisters, [he] filed a Motion for Extension Of TimeTo File Answer and ultimately, [he] filed an Answer With Counter-Claim AndPrayer For Issuance Of Writ Of Preliminary Injunction.

That reading the Answer it is clear that the defense of the sisterstotally rest on public documents (the various titles issued to the land inquestion because of the series [of changes] in ownership) and the sisters andtheir parents actual occupation and possession thereof. xxx xxx xxx

Mr. Lim[s] accusation against [him] in the light of the above-facts isthe best evidence of Humberto C. Lim, Jr.s penchant for exaggeration anddistortion of the truth. Since the defense of the sisters to retain ownership ofthe land in question is based on PUBLIC documents, what delicate andconfidential matters involving personal circumstances of the sisters allegedlyentrusted to [him], is Mr. Humberto C. Lim, Jr. talking about in paragraphs Iand II of his Complaint? What [privity] to all transactions and affairs of thecorporation/hotel is he referring to? Whatever transactions the corporationmay have been involved in or [may be getting involved into], is totallyimmaterial and irrelevant to the defense of the sisters.

There was nothing personal [about the] circumstances of the sisters

nor transactions of the corporation [which were] discussed. The documentsbeing offered as evidence, [he] reiterate[s] for emphasis, are public; thepresumption is that the whole world knows about them.

That [he] [also] vehemently den[ies] another distorted allegation ofMr. Lim that [he] represented Mrs. Jalandoni [in] the entire proceedings of[the] case. [Lim] himself attested that [he] [filed] [his] Motion to Withdraw AsCounsel, dated April 26, 1999 , before the trial court, sometime on April

8/3/2019 CASES 01-22-2012

7/45

27, 1999. How then could [he] have represented Mrs. Jalandoni for[the] entire proceedings of the case?Further, Mr. Lim intentionally hid from this Honorable Court the importantfact that [his] Motion to Withdraw was APPROVED by the trial court becauseof the possibility of a conflict of interest. xxx xxx xxx. [11]

Respondent discredited Lims claim that he deliberately withheld the records of thecited civil case. He insisted that it took him just a few days, not three months, to turn overthe records of the case to Lim.[12] While he admitted an oversight in addressing the notice ofthe motion to withdraw as counsel to Mrs. Totti Anlap Gargoles instead of Mrs. Jalandoni atHotel Alhambra, he maintained that it was the height of hypocrisy to allege that Mrs.

Jalandoni was not aware of his motion to withdraw[13] since Mrs. Gargoles is Mrs. Jalandonissister and Hotel Alhambra is owned by PRC which, in turn, actually belongs to Mrs. Jalandoni.Respondent also argued that no prejudice was suffered by Mrs. Jalandoni because she wasalready represented by Atty. Lorenzo S. Alminaza from the first hearing date. [14] In fact,respondent contended, it was he who was not notified of the substitution of counsels.[15]

As to the bill of P 5,000, respondent stated:

That Mr. Lim begrudge[s] [him] for billing Mrs. Jalandoni Five Thousand(Php5,000.00) Pesos. Mr. Humberto C. Lim Jr. conveniently forgets that thenet worth of the property together with its improvements, under litigation inthat Cabiles, et al. vs. Gargoles et al. case, is a minimum ofTHIRTY MILLION(Php30,000,000.00) PESOS then, and more so now. [He] cannot find anylaw which prohibits a counsel from billing a client for services in proportion tothe services he rendered.[16]

In view of these developments, respondent was adamant that:the only real question to be answered in this complaint is why Mr. Lim soconsistently [determined] to immerse the Jalandoni family [in] a series ofcriminal and civil suits and to block all attempts to reconcile the family by

prolonging litigations, complaints and filing of new ones in spite of theRESOLUTION of the corporation and the UNDERTAKING of the members.[17]

On June 18, 2001, the Court resolved to refer the complaint to the Integrated Bar ofthe Philippines (IBP) for investigation. Commissioner Lydia A. Navarro made the followingreport and recommendation:

xxx xxx xxx

After going over the [pieces of evidence] submitted by the parties[,]the undersigned noted that from the onset, PRC had a case whereinrespondent was its counsel. Later on, complainant had a case againstspouses Jalbuena where the parties were related to each other and the latterspouses were represented by the respondent as their retained counsel; afterrespondent had allegedly withdrawn as counsel for the complainant in CivilCase No. 97-9865.

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#_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

8/3/2019 CASES 01-22-2012

8/45

Being the husband of one of the complainants which respondenthimself averred in his answer, it is incumbent upon Humberto Lim Jr. torepresent his wife as one of the representatives of PRC and Alhambra Hotel inthe administrative complaint to protect not only her interest but that of the[familys].

From the facts obtaining, it is evident that complainant had a lawyer-client relationship with the respondent before the latter [was] retained ascounsel by the Spouses Jalbuena when the latter were sued by complainantsrepresentative.

We cannot disregard the fact that on this situation for some reason oranother there existed some confidentiality and trust between complainantsand respondent to ensure the successful defense of their cases.

Respondent for having appeared as counsel for the Spouses Jalbuenawhen charged by respondents former client Jalandoni of PRC and AlhambraHotel, represented conflicting interests in violation of the Canon ofProfessional Responsibility.

As such therefore, the Undersigned has no alternative but torespectfully recommend the suspension of the respondent from the practiceof law for a period of six (6) months from receipt hereof.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

Pasig City, June 20, 2002.[18]

The IBP Board of Governors (Board), however, reversed the recommendation of theinvestigating commissioner and resolved to dismiss the case on August 3, 2002.[19] Lumot A.

Jalandoni filed a motion for reconsideration (MR) on October 18, 2002 but the Board deniedthe MR since it no longer had jurisdiction to consider and resolve a matter already endorsedto this Court.[20]

Before delving into the core issues of this case, we need to address some preliminary

matters.

Respondent argues that the alleged resolution of PRC and the special power of attorneygiven by Lumot A. Jalandoni to Humberto did not contemplate the filing of an administrativecomplaint.[21] Citing the Rules of Court, respondent said that:

[s]uch complaints are personal in nature and therefore, the filing of the same,cannot be delegated by the alleged aggrieved party to any third personunless expressly authorized by law.

We must note, however, the following:SECTION 1. How instituted. Proceedings for disbarment, suspension ordiscipline of attorneys may be taken by the Supreme Court motu propio, or bythe Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) upon the verified complaint of anyperson. The complaint shall state clearly and concisely the facts complainedof and shall be supported by affidavits or persons having personal

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#_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#_ftn21

8/3/2019 CASES 01-22-2012

9/45

knowledge of the facts therein alleged and/or by such documents a maysubstantiate said facts.

The IBP Board of Governors may, motu propio or upon referral by theSupreme Court or by a Chapter Board of Officers, or at the instance of anyperson, initiate and prosecute proper charges against any erring attorneys.[22]

(emphasis ours)

Complaints against members of the Bar are pursued to preserve the integrity of thelegal profession, not for private vendetta. Thus, whoever has such personal knowledge offacts constituting a cause of action against erring lawyers may file a verified complaint withthe Court or the IBP.[23]Corollary to the public interest in these proceedings is the followingrule:

SEC. 11. Defects. No defect in a complaint, notice, answer, or in theproceeding or the Investigators Report shall be considered assubstantial unless the Board of Governors, upon considering the wholerecord, finds that such defect has resulted or may result in amiscarriage of justice, in which event the Board shall take such remedialaction as the circumstances may warrant, including invalidation of the entireproceedings.[24] (emphasis ours)

Respondent failed to substantiate his allegation that Lims complaint was defective inform and substance, and that entertaining it would result in a miscarriage of justice. For thesame reason, we will no longer put in issue the filing at the onset of a motion to dismiss byrespondent instead of an answer or comment.[25]

The core issues before us now are:

1. whether there existed a conflict of interest in the casesrepresented and handled by respondent, and

2. whether respondent properly withdrew his services as counsel ofrecord in Civil Case No. 97-9865.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Petitioners alleged that as an offshoot of representing conflicting interests, breach ofattorney-client confidentiality and deliberate withholding of records were committed byrespondent. To effectively unravel the alleged conflict of interest, we must look into thecases involved.

In Civil Case No. 97-9865, respondent represented Lumot A. Jalandoni and Totti AnlapGargoles. This was a case for the recovery of possession of property involving Hotel

Alhambra, a hotel owned by PRC.

In BC I.S. No. 99-2192, Lim v. Vicente Delfin, Spouses Dennis and Carmen Jalbuena,respondent was counsel for Delfin and the spouses Jalbuena. In this case, plaintiff CristinaLim sued the spouses Jalbuena and Delfin on the basis of two checks issued by PRC for theconstruction of Hotel Alhambra.[26] The corporate records allegedly reflected that thecontractor, AAQ Sales and Construction (AAQSC), was already paid in full yet Amy AlbertQue of AAQSC still filed a collection case against PRC for an unpaid balance.[27] In hercomplaint-affidavit, Cristina averred:

http://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#_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#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn27http://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#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn27

8/3/2019 CASES 01-22-2012

10/45

11. That it was respondent Carmen J. Jalbuena, who took advantage of [her]signatures in blank in DBP Check Nos. 0865590 and 0865591, and who filledup the spaces of the payee, date and amount without the knowledge andconsent of any officer of the corporation and [herself], after which she causedthe delivery of the same checks to her husband Dennis Jalbuena, who

encashed without [their] knowledge and consent, and received the proceedsof the same checks (as evidenced by his signature in receipt of payment onthe dorsal side of the said checks) with the indispensable participation andcooperation of respondent Vicente B. Delfin, the Asst. Vice President andBranch Head of UCPB.[28]

Notably, in his comment, respondent stated:

There was a possibility of conflict of interest because by this time, or onemonth before [he] filed [his] Motion to Withdraw, Mrs. Jalandoni /PentaResorts Corporation, Mr. Lim, through his wife, Cristina J. Lim, by anothercounsel, Atty. Lorenzo S. Alminaza, filed a criminal complaint against thespouses Dennis and Carmen J. Jalbuena on March 26, 1999 under BC-I.S.Case No. 99-2192.[29]

Similarly, in BC I.S. Nos. 00-1370, 2000-2304, 2000-2343, 00-2125, 00-2230, 00-880,respondent positioned himself against PRCs interests.

And, in Civil Case No. 99-10660, a collection case against PRC, Atty. Alminaza of PRC

was alarmed by the appearance of respondent at the table in court for AAQSCs counsel.[30]

Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) highlights the need

for candor, fairness and loyalty in all the dealings of lawyers with their clients. Rule 15.03 ofthe CPR aptly provides:

Rule 15.03 A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except

by written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts.

It is only upon strict compliance with the condition of full disclosure of facts that alawyer may appear against his client; otherwise, his representation of conflicting interests isreprehensible.[31] Conflict of interest may be determined in this manner:

There is representation of conflicting interests if the acceptance of the newretainer will require the attorney to do anything which will injuriouslyaffect his first client in any matter in which he represents him and alsowhether he will be called upon in his new relation, to use against his firstclient any knowledge acquired through their connection.[32](emphasis ours)

The rule on conflict of interests covers not only cases in which confidentialcommunications have been confided but alsothose in which no confidence has beenbestowed or will be used.[33]

Another test of the inconsistency of interests is whether the acceptance of anew relation will prevent an attorney from the full discharge of his duty ofundivided fidelity and loyalty to his client or invite suspicion of unfaithfulness

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn33

8/3/2019 CASES 01-22-2012

11/45

or double-dealing in the performance thereof, and also whether he will becalled upon in his new relation to use against his first client any knowledgeacquire in the previous employment. The first part of the rule refers to casesin which the opposing parties are present clients either in the same actionor in a totally unrelated case; the second part pertains to those in whichthe adverse party against whom the attorney appears is his former client in a

matter which is related, directly or indirectly, to the presentcontroversy.[34] (emphasis ours)

The rule prohibits a lawyer from representing new clients whose interests oppose thoseof a former client in any manner, whether or not they are parties in the same action or intotally unrelated cases. The cases here directly or indirectly involved the partiesconnection to PRC, even if neither PRC nor Lumot A. Jalandoni was specifically named asparty-litigant in some of the cases mentioned.

An attorney owes to his client undivided allegiance. After being retained andreceiving the confidences of the client, he cannot, without the free andintelligent consent of his client, act both for his client and for one whoseinterest is adverse to, or conflicting with that of his client in the same generalmatter. The prohibition stands even if the adverse interest is veryslight; neither is it material that the intention and motive of theattorney may have been honest.[35] (emphasis ours)

The representation by a lawyer of conflicting interests, in the absence of the writtenconsent of all parties concerned after a full disclosure of the facts, constitutes professionalmisconduct which subjects the lawyer to disciplinary action.[36]

Even respondents alleged effort to settle the existing controversy among the family

members[37] was improper because the written consent of all concerned was still required.[38] A lawyer who acts as such in settling a dispute cannot represent any of the parties to it.[39]

WITHDRAWAL AS COUNSEL IN CIVIL CASE NO. 97-9865

The next bone of contention was the propriety of respondents withdrawal as counselfor Lumot A. Jalandoni in Civil Case No. 97-9865 to fulfill an alleged retainership agreementwith the spouses Jalbuena in a suit by PRC, through Cristina Lim, against the Jalbuenas andDelfin (BC I.S. No. 99-2192). In his December 1, 2000 comment, respondent stated that itwas he who was not notified of the hiring of Atty. Alminaza as the new counsel in that caseand that he withdrew from the case with the knowledge of Lumot A. Jalandoni and with leaveof court.

The rule on termination of attorney-client relations may be summarized as follows:

The relation of attorney and client may be terminated by the client, by thelawyer or by the court, or by reason of circumstances beyond the control ofthe client or the lawyer. The termination of the attorney-client relationshipentails certain duties on the part of the client and his lawyer.[40]

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn35http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn36http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn37http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn38http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn39http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn40http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn35http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn36http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn37http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn38http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn39http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn40

8/3/2019 CASES 01-22-2012

12/45

Accordingly, it has been held that the right of an attorney to withdraw or terminatethe relation other than for sufficient cause is considerably restricted. Canon 22 of the CPRreads:

Canon 22 A lawyer shall withdraw his services only for good cause and uponnotice appropriate in the circumstances.

An attorney may only retire from a case either by written consent of his client or bypermission of the court after due notice and hearing, in which event the attorney should seeto it that the name of the new lawyer is recorded in the case. [41]A lawyer who desires toretire from an action without the written consent of his client must file a petition forwithdrawal in court.[42] He must serve a copy of his petition upon his client and the adverseparty at least three days before the date set for hearing, otherwise the court may treat theapplication as a mere scrap of paper.[43] Respondent made no such move. He admittedthat he withdrew as counsel on April 26, 1999, which withdrawal was supposedly approvedby the court on April 28, 1999. The conformity of Mrs. Jalandoni was only presumed by Atty.Villarosa because of the appearance of Atty. Alminaza in court, supposedly in his place.

[A client] may discharge his attorney at any time with or without cause andthereafter employ another lawyer who may then enter his appearance. Thus,it has been held that a client is free to change his counsel in a pending caseand thereafter retain another lawyer to represent him. That manner ofchanging a lawyer does not need the consent of the lawyer to be dismissed.Nor does it require approval of the court.[44]

The appearance of Atty. Alminaza in fact was not even to substitute for respondentbut to act as additional counsel.[45] Mrs. Jalandonis conformity to having an additional lawyerdid not necessarily mean conformity to respondents desire to withdraw as counsel.Respondents speculations on the professional relationship of Atty. Alminaza and Mrs.

Jalandoni find no support in the records of this case.

Respondent should not have presumed that his motion to withdraw ascounsel[46] would be granted by the court. Yet, he stopped appearing as Mrs. Jalandoniscounsel beginning April 28, 1999, the first hearing date. No order from the court was shownto have actually granted his motion for withdrawal. Only an order dated June 4, 1999 had asemblance of granting his motion:

When this case was called for hearing Atty. Lorenzo Alminaza appeared forthe defendants considering that Atty. Nicanor Villarosa has alreadywithdrawn his appearance in this case which the Court considered itto be approved as it bears the conformity of the defendants.[47] (emphasisours)

That Mrs. Jalandoni continued with Atty. Alminazas professional engagement on herbehalf despite respondents withdrawal did not absolve the latter of the consequences of hisunprofessional conduct, specially in view of the conflicting interests already discussed.Respondent himself stated that his withdrawal from Civil Case No. 97-9865 was due to thepossibility of a conflict of interest.[48]

Be that as it may, the records do not support the claim that respondent improperly

collected P5,000 from petitioner. Undoubtedly, respondent provided professional services toLumot A. Jalandoni. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the documents belonging to Mrs.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn41http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn41http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn42http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn43http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn44http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn45http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn46http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn46http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn47http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn48http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn41http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn42http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn43http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn44http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn45http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn46http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn47http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn48

8/3/2019 CASES 01-22-2012

13/45

Jalandoni were deliberately withheld. The right of an attorney to retain possession of aclients documents, money or other property which may have lawfully come into hispossession in his professional capacity, until his lawful fees and disbursements have beenfully paid, is well-established.[49]

Finally, we express our utter dismay with Lims apparent use of his wifes community

tax certificate number in his complaint for disbarment against respondent.

[50]

This is not,however, the forum to discuss this lapse.WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, respondent Atty. Nicanor V. Villarosa is hereby

found GUILTYof violating Canon 15 and Canon 22 of the Code of Professional Responsibilityand is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one (1) year, effective upon receipt of thisdecision, with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealtwith more severely.

Let a copy of this resolution be entered into the records of respondent and furnished to

the Office of the Clerk of Court, the Office of the Bar Confidant, the Integrated Bar of thePhilippines, and all courts in the Philippines, for their information and guidance.

FIRST DIVISION

FELICITAS S. QUIAMBAO, Adm. Case No. 6708

Complainant, (CBD Case No. 01-874)

Present:

DAVIDE, JR., C.J.,

(Chairman),

- versus - QUISUMBING,

SANTIAGO,

CARPIO, and

AZCUNA, JJ.

ATTY. NESTOR A. BAMBA , Promulgated:

Respondent.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn49http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn50http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn50http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn49http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.C.%20No.%205303.htm#_ftn50

8/3/2019 CASES 01-22-2012

14/45

August 25, 2005

X- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X

RESOLUTION

DAVIDE, JR., C.J.:

We are aware of the hapless fact that there are not enough lawyers toserve an exploding population. This unfortunate state of affairs, however,wi l l not seize this Court from exercis ing i ts discipl inary power over lawyersculpable of serious indiscretions. The inc idence of publ ic force must bedeployed to bear upon the community to eventual ly forge a legal professionthat provides qual ity, ethical , accessible, and cost-effective legal service toour people and whose members are wi l l ing and able to answer the cal l topublic service.

In th is administrat ive case for d isbarment, complainant Fe lic itas S.Quiambao charges respondent Atty. Nestor A. Bamba with v iolat ion of theCode of Profess ional Respons ibi l ity for representing conf l ict ing interestsw he n t he l at te r f il ed a c as e aga in st he r w hi le h e w as a t t ha t t im erepresenting her in another case, and for committ ing other acts of dis loyaltyand double-dealing.

From June 2000 to January 2001, the complainant was the pres identand managing di rector of A l lied Investigat ion Bureau, Inc. (A IB) , a fami ly-owned corporation engaged in providing security and investigation services.She avers that she procured the legal services of the respondent not only for

the corporate affairs of AIB but also for her personal case. Part icularly, therespondent acted as her counsel of record in an e jectment case againstSpouses Sant iago and F lor i ta Torroba f i led by her on 29 December 2000before the Metropol i tan Tr ial Court (MeTC) of Paraaque Ci ty , which wasdocketed as Civi l Case No. 11928. She paid attorneys fees for respondentslegal serv ices in that case. [1 ] About s ix months after she res igned as AIBpresident , or on 14 June 2001, the respondent f il ed on behal f o f A IB acomplaint for replevin and damages against her before the MeTC of QuezonCity for the purpose of recovering from her the car of AIB assigned to her asa service vehicle. This he did without withdrawing as counsel of record in theejectment case, which was then sti l l pending. [ 2 ]

Apart f rom the foregoing l i tigat ion matter, the complainant, in herPosit ion Paper, charges the respondent with acts of dis loyalty and double-

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/aug2005/ac_6708.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/aug2005/ac_6708.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/aug2005/ac_6708.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/aug2005/ac_6708.htm#_ftn2

8/3/2019 CASES 01-22-2012

15/45

deal ing. She avers that the respondent proposed to her that she organizeher own securi ty agency and that he would ass ist her in i ts organizat ion,causing her to resign as president of AIB. The respondent indeed assistedher in December 2000 in the formation of another security agency, QuiambaoRisk Management Specialists, Inc., (QRMSI), which was later registered undercomplainants name, with the respondent as a si lent partner represented

by h is assoc iate Atty. Gerardo P . Hernandez. The respondent was paidattorneys fees for his legal services in organizing and incorporating QRMSI.He also planned to steal or pirate some of the more important cl ients of

AIB. Whi le serving as legal counsel for AIB and a si lent partner of QRMSI,he convinced complainant s brother Leodegar io Quiambao to organizeanother security agency, San Esteban Security Services, Inc. (SESSI) wherehe (the respondent) served as i ts incorporator, director, and president. Therespondent and Leodegario then i l legal ly diverted the funds of AIB to fundthe incorporation of SESSI, and l ikewise planned to eventually close down theoperations of AIB and transfer the business to SESSI. [3 ]

Fo r his pa rt, the r espondent admit s that he repr esent ed the

complainant in the aforementioned ejectment case and later represented AIBin the replev in case against her . He, however , den ies that he was thepersonal lawyer of the complainant, and avers that he was made to believethat i t was par t o f h is funct ion as counsel f or A IB to handle even thepersonal cases of i ts o f fi ce rs. Even assuming that the compla inantcon fi ded to h im p ri vi leged i nformati on about her l egal i nteres ts , theejectment case and the replevin case are unrelated cases involving differentissues and parties and, therefore, the pr iv i leged informat ion which mighthave been gathered from one case would have no use in the other. At anyrate, i t was the complainant herself who insisted that he stay as her counseldespite the perceived differences among her, her brother, and AIB over themotor vehicle subject of the replevin case. The complainant even asked himto assist her in her monetary claims against AIB. [ 4 ]

The respondent also denies the charge raised by the complainant in herposit ion paper that he agreed to be a si lent partner of QRMSI through hisnominee, Atty. Gerardo P. Hernandez, who was his former law partner. Hedec lined complainant s o f fe r to assume that ro le and suggested Atty.Hernandez in h is p lace; thus, 375 shares of s tock were registered in Atty.Hernandezs name as consideration of his (Atty. Hernandezs) legal servicesas corporate secretary and legal counsel of QRMSI . The respondent alsoden ies that he conv inced complainant s brother Leodegar io to organizeanother security agency and t hat the funds of AIB were unlawfully diverted toSESSI. I t was to complement the business of AIB, which was then in danger

of col lapse, that SESSI was establ ished. Leodegarios wife and her son havethe effective control over SESSI. Respondents subscribed shareholdings inSESSI comprise only 800 shares out of 12,500 subscribed shares. He servesAIB and SESSI in di fferent capacit ies: as legal counsel of the former and aspresident of the latter. [ 5 ]

I n h is Repor t and Recommendat ion[ 6 ] d at ed 3 1 A ug us t 2 00 4, t heinves ti ga ti ng commiss ione r o f the IBP found the respondent gui lt y o f

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/aug2005/ac_6708.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/aug2005/ac_6708.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/aug2005/ac_6708.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/aug2005/ac_6708.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/aug2005/ac_6708.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/aug2005/ac_6708.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/aug2005/ac_6708.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/aug2005/ac_6708.htm#_ftn6

8/3/2019 CASES 01-22-2012

16/45

representing confl ict ing interests based on the fol lowing undisputed facts:f ir st , the respondent was s ti ll complainant s counsel o f record i n theejectment case when he f i led, as legal counsel of A IB, the replevin caseagainst her; and second, the respondent was st i l l the legal counsel of A IBwhen he advised the complainant on the incorporat ion of another securi tyagency, QRMSI , and recommended his former law partner, Atty. Gerardo

Hernandez, to be its corporate secretary and legal counsel and also when heconferred with Leodegario to organize another security agency, SESSI, wherethe respondent became an incorporator, stockholder, and president. Thus,the investigating commiss ioner recommended that the respondent besuspended from the practice of law for one year.

The IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the investigat ingcommissioners report and recommendation, but reduced the penalty fromone year to a stern reprimand. [ 7 ]

The issue in this case is whether the respondent is guilty of misconductfor representing confl ict ing interests in contravention of the basic tenets ofthe legal profession.

Rule 15.03, Canon 5 of the Code of P rofess ional Respons ib il ityprovides: A lawyer shal l not represent conf l ic t ing interests except bywritten consent of al l concerned given after a ful l disclosure of the facts. This prohibition is founded on principles of public policy and good taste. [ 8 ]

In the course of a lawyer-cl ient relationship, the lawyer learns all the factsconnected with the cl ients case, including the weak and strong points ofthe case. The nature of that re lationship is , therefore, one of t rust andconfidence of the highest degree. [ 9 ] I t behooves lawyers not only to keepinv io late the c lient s confidence, but a lso to avo id the appearance of treachery and double-deal ing for only then can l i t igants be encouraged toentrust their secrets to their lawyers, which is of paramount importance inthe administration of justice. [ 1 0 ]

In broad terms, lawyers are deemed to represent confl icting interestswhen, in behalf of one client, it is their duty to contend for that which duty toanother cl ient requires them to oppose. [ 1 1 ] Developments in jurisprudencehave particularized various tests to determine whether a lawyers conduct

l ies within this proscription. One test is whether a lawyer is duty-bound tofight for an issue or claim in behalf of one cl ient and, at the same time, tooppose that c laim for the other c l ient. [ 1 2 ] Thus, i f a lawyers argument forone c l ient has to be opposed by that same lawyer in arguing for the otherclient, there is a violation of the rule.

Another test of inconsistency of interests is whether the acceptance ofa new relat ion would prevent the ful l d ischarge of the lawyer s duty of

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/aug2005/ac_6708.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/aug2005/ac_6708.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/aug2005/ac_6708.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/aug2005/ac_6708.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/aug2005/ac_6708.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/aug2005/ac_6708.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/aug2005/ac_6708.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/aug2005/ac_6708.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/aug2005/ac_6708.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/aug2005/ac_6708.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/aug2005/ac_6708.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/aug2005/ac_6708.htm#_ftn12

8/3/2019 CASES 01-22-2012

17/45

undivided fidelity and loya lty to the cl ient or invite suspicion of unfai thfu lness or double-deal ing in the performance of that duty. [ 1 3 ] Stil lanother test is whether the lawyer would be cal led upon in the new relationto use against a former cl ient any confidential information acquired throughtheir connection or previous employment. [ 1 4 ]

The proscription against representation of confl icting interests appliesto a s i tuat ion where the oppos ing part ies are present c l ients in the sameaction or in an unrelated action. I t is of no moment that the lawyer wouldnot be cal led upon to contend for one c l ient that which the lawyer has tooppose for the other c l ient , or that there would be no occas ion to use theconfidential information acquired from one to the disadvantage of the otheras the two act ions are whol ly unre lated. I t i s enough that the oppos ingparties in one case, one of whom would lose the suit, are present cl ients andthe nature or condi tions of the lawyers respect ive retainers wi th each of them would affect the performance of the duty of undivided f idel i ty to bothclients. [ 1 5 ]

In this case, i t is undisputed that at the t ime the respondent f i led therep levin case on behal f o f A IB he was s ti ll the counsel o f record of thecomplainant in the pending ejectment case. We do not sustain respondentstheory that s ince the e jectment case and the replevin case are unre latedcases f raught w ith d if fe rent i ssues, part ies, and sub ject matters, theprohibit ion is inappl icable. His representation of opposing cl ients in bothcases, though unrelated, obviously constitutes confl ict of interest or, at theleast, invites suspicion of double-dealing. Whi le the respondent may assertthat the complainant expressly consented to his continued representation inthe ejectment case, the respondent failed to show that he fully disclosed thefacts to both his cl ients and he fai led to present any written consent of the

complainant and AIB as required under Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the Code ofProfessional Responsibil ity.

Neither can we accept respondents plea that he was duty-bound tohandle al l the cases referred to him by AIB, including the personal cases ofi ts o f fi ce rs wh ich had no connect ion to i ts corporate affa irs. That therepresentation of confl ic ting interest i s in good fa ith and w ith honestintention on the part of the lawyer does not make the prohibition inoperative.[ 1 6 ] Moreover, lawyers are not obliged to act either as an adviser or advocatefor every person who may wish to become their cl ient. They have the right todecl ine such employment, subject , however, to Canon 14 of the Code of Professional Responsibil ity. [ 1 7 ] Although there are instances where lawyerscannot decline representation, [ 1 8 ] they cannot be made to labor under confl ictof interest between a present cl ient and a prospective one. [ 1 9 ]

Addit ional ly, in his posit ion paper, the respondent al leges that whenthe compla inant inv ited the respondent to join QRMSI , he vehement lyrefused to join them due to his perception of conflicting interest as he wasthen (and s ti ll i s at present ) the Legal Counsel o f A IB , which i s a lso a

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/aug2005/ac_6708.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/aug2005/ac_6708.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/aug2005/ac_6708.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/aug2005/ac_6708.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/aug2005/ac_6708.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/aug2005/ac_6708.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/aug2005/ac_6708.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/aug2005/ac_6708.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/aug2005/ac_6708.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/aug2005/ac_6708.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/aug2005/ac_6708.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/aug2005/ac_6708.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/aug2005/ac_6708.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/aug2005/ac_6708.htm#_ftn19

8/3/2019 CASES 01-22-2012

18/45

security agency. [ 2 0 ] To bolster h is al legat ion, he invoked the af f idavi ts of complainants witnesses which contained statements of his apprehension ofconfl ict of interest should he join QRMSI. [21]

Surpris ingly, despi te h is apprehension or awareness of a poss ible

confl ic t o f interes t should he join QRMSI , the respondent later a llowedhimself to become an incorporator, s tockholder, and president of SESSI ,which is also a security agency. He justif ied his act by claiming that thatwhile both AIB and SESSI are engaged in security agency bus iness, he isserv ing in d i f ferent capaci ties. As the in-house legal counsel of A IB, heserves i ts legal interest the parameter o f which evo lves around legalmatters such as protecting the legal r ights and interest of the corporation;conducting an investigation or a hearing on violations of company rules andregulations of their off ice employees and security guards; sending demandletters in col lection cases; and representing the corporation in any l i t igationfor or agains t i t. And as president o f SESSI , he serves the operat ionalaspects of the business such as how does i t operate[] , how much do theyprice their services, what kind or how do they train[] their security guards,

how they sol ic i t c l ients. Thus, confl ict of interest is far-fetched. Moreover,the respondent argues that the complainant, not being a stockholder of AIBand SESSI, has no right to question his al leged confl ict of interest in servingthe two security agencies. [ 2 2 ]

Whi le the compla inant lacks personal ity to quest ion the a llegedconfl ict of interests on the part of the respondent in serving both securityagencies , we cannot just turn a b l ind eye to respondents act . I t must benoted that the proscr ipt ion against representat ion of conf l ic t ing interestsf inds appl icat ion where the conf l ic t ing interests ar ise wi th respect to thesame general matter however s l ight the adverse interest may be. I t appl ies

even i f the con fl ic t per ta ins to the l awye r s p ri va te act iv it y o r i n theperformance of a function in a non-professional capacity. [ 2 3 ] In the process ofdetermining whether there is a confl ict of interest, an important cri terion isprobabil ity, not certainty, of confl ict.

S ince the respondent has f inancial or pecuniary interest in SESSI ,which i s engaged in a bus iness competing w ith h is c lient s, and, moreimportant ly, he occupies the h ighest posi t ion in SESSI , one cannot he lpentertaining a doubt on his loyalty to his cl ient AIB. This kind of s i tuationp as se s t he s ec on d t es t o f c on fl ic t o f i nt erest , w hi ch is w he th er t heacceptance of a new re lat ionship would prevent the fu l l d ischarge of thelawyers duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty to the cl ient or invite suspicionof unfai thfu lness or double-deal ing in the performance of that duty. Theclose relationship of the majority stockholders of both companies does notnegate the conf l ic t o f interes t. Nei ther does h is protes tation that h isshareholding in SESSI is a mere pebble among the sands.

In view of al l of the foregoing, we f ind the respondent gui l ty of seriousmisconduct for representing confl icting interests.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/aug2005/ac_6708.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/aug2005/ac_6708.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/aug2005/ac_6708.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/aug2005/ac_6708.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/aug2005/ac_6708.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/aug2005/ac_6708.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/aug2005/ac_6708.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/aug2005/ac_6708.htm#_ftn23

8/3/2019 CASES 01-22-2012

19/45

Furthermore, i t must be noted that Republ ic Act No. 5487, otherwiseknown as the Private Security Agency Law , prohibits a person from organizingor having an interest in more than one security agency. From respondentsposit ion paper, i t can be cul led that Leodegario Quiambao is the presidentand managing director of AIB, holding 60% of the outstanding shares; whi lehis four other siblings who are permanent residents in the United States ownthe remaining 40%. [ 2 4 ] This prohibi t ion notwithstanding, the respondentorganized SESSI , wi th Leodegarios wi fe and son as major i ty stockholdersholding about 70% of the outstanding shares and with him (the respondent),as wel l as the rest of the stockholders, holding minimal shares. [ 2 5 ] In doingso, the respondent v ir tua l ly a llowed Leodegar io and the lat ter s w ife toviolate or circumvent the law by having an interest in more than one securityagency. I t must be noted that in the af f idavi t [ 2 6 ] of Leodegarios wife, shement ioned of the ir conjugal property. In the absence of ev idence to thecontrary, the property relatio n of Leodegario and his wife can be presumed tobe that of conjugal partnership of gains; hence, the majority shares in AIBand SESSI are the conjugal property of Leodegario and his wi fe, therebyplac ing themselves in possess ion of an interest in more than one securi ty

agency in contravention of R.A. No. 5487. Thus, in organizing SESSI, theres pond en t v io la te d Rul e 1 .0 2, C an on 1 o f t he C od e o f Prof ess iona lResponsibi l i ty, which mandates lawyers to promote respect for the law andrefrain from counseling or abetting activities aimed at defiance of the law.

A s t o t he rec omm en da ti on t ha t t he p en al ty b e redu ce d f rom asuspens ion of one year to a stern warning, we f ind the same to be withoutbas is . We are d is tu rbed by the reduc ti on made by the IBP Board o f Governors of the penalty recommended by the investigating commissionerwithout c lear ly and dist inct ly stat ing the facts and reasons on which thatreduction is based.

Section 12(a), Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court reads in part asfollows:

SEC. 12. Review and decision by the Board of Governors.

(a) Every case heard by an investigator shal l be reviewed bythe IBP Board o f Governors upon the record and evidence

transmitted to it by the Investigator with his report. The decisionof the Board upon such review shall be in writing andshall c lear ly and dist inct ly state the facts and the reasons onwhich it is based.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/aug2005/ac_6708.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/aug2005/ac_6708.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/aug2005/ac_6708.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/aug2005/ac_6708.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/aug2005/ac_6708.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/aug2005/ac_6708.htm#_ftn26

8/3/2019 CASES 01-22-2012

20/45

We may cons ider the resolut ion of the IBP Board of Governors as amemorandum decis ion adopting by reference the report of the investigatingc om mi ss ione r. Howe ve r, w e l ook w it h d is favo r t he c hang e i n t herecommended penalty without any explanation therefor. Again, we remindthe IBP Board of Governors of the importance of the requirement to announcein plain terms its legal reasoning, s ince the requirement that i ts decis ion in

discipl inary proceedings must state the facts and the reasons on which i tsdecis ion is based is ak in to what is required of the decis ions of courts of record. [ 2 7 ] The reasons for handing down a penalty occupy no lesser stationthan any other portion of the ratio.

In similar cases where the respondent was found guilty of representingconfl ict ing interests a penalty ranging from one to three years suspensionwas imposed. [ 2 8 ] In this case, we f ind that a suspension from the practice oflaw for one year is warranted.

WHEREFORE , respondent Atty. Nestor A. Bamba is herebyheld GUILTYof violation of Rule 15.03 of Canon 15 and Rule 1.02 of Canon 1of the Code of P rofess ional Responsibi li ty . He i s SUSPENDED f rom thepract ice of law for a per iod of ONE (1) YEAR effective from receipt of thisResolut ion, wi th a warning that a s imi lar infract ion in the future shal l bedealt with more severely.

Le t cop ies o f thi s Resolut ion be furni shed to the Of fi ce of the Bar

Confidant and the Integrated Bar of the Phil ippines.

A.C. No. 4354 April 22, 2002

LOLITA ARTEZUELA, complainant,vs.ATTY. RICARTE B. MADERAZO, respondent.

PUNO,J.:

For his failure to meet the exacting standards of professional ethics, the Board of Governorsof the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) in its Resolution of May 2, 2000 recommendedthe suspension from the practice of law of respondent Atty. Ricarte B. Maderazo for theperiod of six (6) months, with a stern warning that repetition of the same act will be dealtwith more severely. Respondent allegedly represented conflicting interests in violation ofCanon 6 of the Code of Professional Ethics, and Canon 15 and Rule 15.03 of the Code ofProfessional Responsibility.1

By way of a Motion for Reconsideration,2 respondent now comes before this Court tochallenge the basis of the IBP's resolution, and prays for its reversal.

The factual antecedents of the case are as follows: On or about 3:00 in the early morning ofDecember 24, 1992, Allan Echavia had a vehicular accident at Caduman St., corner H.Abellana St., Mandaue City. At the time of the accident, Echavia was driving a Ford Telstar

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/aug2005/ac_6708.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/aug2005/ac_6708.htm#_ftn28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/apr2002/ac_4354_2002.html#fnt2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/aug2005/ac_6708.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/aug2005/ac_6708.htm#_ftn28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/apr2002/ac_4354_2002.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/apr2002/ac_4354_2002.html#fnt2

8/3/2019 CASES 01-22-2012

21/45

car owned by a Japanese national named Hirometsi Kiyami, but was registered in the nameof his brother-in-law, Jun Anthony Villapez. The car rammed into a small carinderia owned bycomplainant Lolita Artezuela.3

The destruction of the complainant's carinderia caused the cessation of the operation of hersmall business, resulting to her financial dislocation. She incurred debts from her relatives

and due to financial constraints, stopped sending her two children to college.4

Complainant engaged the services of the respondent in filing a damage suit against Echavia,Villapez and one Bernardo Sia.5 Docketed as Civil Case No. 13666, the case was assigned toBranch 14 of the Regional Trial Court of Cebu. An Amended Complaint was thereafter filed,impleading Echavia, Kiyami and Villapez, and dropping Sia as a party-defendant.6 For hisservices, complainant paid the respondent the amount of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00)as attorney's fees and Two Thousand Pesos (P2,000.00) as filing fee.7 However, the case wasdismissed on March 22, 1994, allegedly upon the instance of the complainant and herhusband.8

Because of the dismissal of Civil Case No. 13666, complainant filed a civil case for damagesagainst the respondent. It was docketed as CEB-18552 and assigned to Branch 57, Regional

Trial Court of Cebu City. The case was dismissed on June 12, 2001.9

On November 24, 1994, Artezuela filed before this Court a verified complaint for disbarmentagainst the respondent. She alleged that respondent grossly neglected his duties as alawyer and failed to represent her interests with zeal and enthusiasm. According to her,when Civil Case No. 13666 was scheduled for pre-trial conference on August 20, 1993,respondent asked for its postponement although all the parties were present.Notwithstanding complainant's persistent and repeated follow-up, respondent did not doanything to keep the case moving. He withdrew as counsel without obtaining complainant'sconsent.10

Complainant also claimed that respondent engaged in activities inimical to her interests.While acting as her counsel, respondent prepared Echavia's Answer to the AmendedComplaint. The said document was even printed in respondent's office. Complainant furtheraverred that it was respondent who sought the dismissal of the case, misleading the trialcourt into thinking that the dismissal was with her consent.11

Respondent denied the complainant's allegations and averred that he conscientiously did hispart as the complainant's lawyer in Civil Case No. 13666. He withdrew as counsel becausethe complainant was uncooperative and refused to confer with him. He also gave severalnotices to the complainant and made known his intention before he filed his Manifestation towithdraw as counsel. Because of the severed relationship, the lower court, after holding aconference, decided to grant respondent's manifestation and advised the complainant tosecure the services of a new lawyer. Complainant, however, refused and instead, sought thedismissal of the case.12

Respondent alleged that he sought the postponement of the Pre-Trial Conference scheduledon August 20, 1993 so that he could file the Amended Complaint. He admitted that Echavia'sAnswer to the Amended Complaint was printed in his office but denied having prepared thedocument and having acted as counsel of Echavia. He claimed that complainant requestedhim to prepare Echavia's Answer but he declined. Echavia, however, went back to his officeand asked respondent's secretary to print the document. Respondent intimated that thecomplainant and Echavia have fabricated the accusations against him to compel him to paythe amount of P500,000.00.13

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/apr2002/ac_4354_2002.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/apr2002/ac_4354_2002.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/apr2002/ac_4354_2002.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/apr2002/ac_4354_2002.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/apr2002/ac_4354_2002.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/apr2002/ac_4354_2002.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/apr2002/ac_4354_2002.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/apr2002/ac_4354_2002.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/apr2002/ac_4354_2002.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/apr2002/ac_4354_2002.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/apr2002/ac_4354_2002.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/apr2002/ac_4354_2002.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/apr2002/ac_4354_2002.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/apr2002/ac_4354_2002.html#fnt13

8/3/2019 CASES 01-22-2012

22/45

This Court referred the complaint to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). The IBP-Visayas Regional Committee on Bar Discipline formed an Investigating Committee to hearthe disbarment complaint.

On October 6, 1999, Commissioner Gabriel T. Ingles issued a Report finding the respondentguilty of representing conflicting interests, in violation of Canon 15 and Rule 15.03 of the

Code of Professional Responsibility, as well as, of Canon 6 of the Code of Professional Ethics.He recommended that the respondent be suspended from the practice of law for a period ofone (1) year.14 Commissioner Ingles did not rule on the other issues.

As aforesaid, the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines upheld thefindings of the Committee with modification only as to the penalty.

Seeking reconsideration of the IBP's resolution, respondent contends that the InvestigatingCommittee did not conduct trial; hence, he was not able to confront and examine thewitnesses against him. He argues that the Investigating Committee's finding that herepresented Echavia is contrary to court records and the complainant's own testimony inCEB-18552. He also casts doubt on the credibility of the Investigating Committee to render

just and fair recommendations considering that the Investigating Commissioner and the

respondent are counsel-adversaries in another case, Civil Case No. R-33277. Finally, hequestions the imposition of a six-month suspension, which he claims to be harsh consideringthat his private practice is his only source of income.15

After carefully examining the records, as well as the applicable laws and jurisprudence onthe matter, this Court is inclined to uphold the IBP's resolution.1wphi1.nt

In administrative cases, the requirement of notice and hearing does not connote fulladversarial proceedings, as "actual adversarial proceedings become necessary only forclarification or when there is a need to propound searching questions to witnesses who givevague testimonies."16 Due process is fulfilled when the parties were given reasonableopportunity to be heard and to submit evidence in support of their arguments.17

In the case at bar, records show that respondent repeatedly sought the postponement of thehearings, prompting the Investigating Commissioner to receive complainant's evidence ex

parte and to set the case for resolution after the parties have submitted their respectivememorandum. Hence:

"The records show that this is already the third postponement filed by respondentnamely December 12, 1996 (sic), January 3, 1996 and April 1, 1996.

The Commission for the last time, will cancel today's hearing and can no longertolerate any further postponement. Notify respondent by telegram for the hearing for(sic) April 22, 1996 at 2:00 P.M. Said hearing is intransferable in character.

In the meantime, complainant affirmed her complaint and likewise her witness, AllanEchavia, also affirmed the contents of his affidavit and further stated that he hadexecuted the same and understood the contents thereof."18

It is by his own negligence that the respondent was deemed to have waived his right tocross-examine the complainant and her witness. He cannot belatedly ask this Court to grantnew trial after he has squandered his opportunity to exercise his right.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/apr2002/ac_4354_2002.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/apr2002/ac_4354_2002.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/apr2002/ac_4354_2002.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/apr2002/ac_4354_2002.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/apr2002/ac_4354_2002.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/apr2002/ac_4354_2002.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/apr2002/ac_4354_2002.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/apr2002/ac_4354_2002.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/apr2002/ac_4354_2002.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/apr2002/ac_4354_2002.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/apr2002/ac_4354_2002.html#fnt18

8/3/2019 CASES 01-22-2012

23/45

Respondent's contention that the finding of the Investigating Committee was contrary to therecords and the complainant's own admission in CEB-18552 is without merit. It is true thatAtty. Aviola was Echavia's counsel-of-record in Civil Case No. 13666 as evidenced by thecertification from the clerk of court,19 and as admitted by the complainant in CEB-18552, viz:

"ATTY. MADERAZO: (To witness- ON CROSS)

Q: Madam witness, you mentioned that the defendant in this case was thecounsel of Allan Echavia as early as August 20, 1993, wherein you learned for thefirst time of this fact when you say he is counsel of Allan Echavia. (sic) You mean heis the counsel of record of Allan Echavia in the Civil Case before Judge Dacudao? Isthat what you mean?

A: What I learned was that Atty. Alviola was the counsel of Allan Echavia in thecase before Judge Dacudao but I heard Atty. Maderazo telling Allan Echavia not toadmit that Atty. Maderazo is appearing for me because he will be the one tocoordinate with Allan's case.

Q: So it is clear that the defendant in this case is not the counsel of record of

Allan Echavia. It was Atty. Alviola stated by you now?

A: Atty. Maderazo was not Allan Echavia's counsel but it was Atty. Alviola whowas the counsel of record of Allan Echavia."20

Nevertheless, the issue in this case is not whether the respondent also acted as the counsel-of-record of Echavia. Rather, it is whether or not he had a direct hand in the preparation ofEchavia's Answer to the Amended Complaint.

To be guilty of representing conflicting interests, a counsel-of-record of one party need notalso be counsel-of-record of the adverse party. He does not have to publicly hold himself asthe counsel of the adverse party, nor make his efforts to advance the adverse party's

conflicting interests of record--- although these circumstances are the most obvious andsatisfactory proof of the charge. It is enough that the counsel of one party had a hand in thepreparation of the pleading of the other party, claiming adverse and conflicting interestswith that of his original client. To require that he also be counsel-of-record of the adverseparty would punish only the most obvious form of deceit and reward, with impunity, thehighest form of disloyalty.

Canon 6 of the Code of Professional Ethics states:

"It is the duty of a lawyer at the time of the retainer to disclose to the client thecircumstances of his relations to the parties and any interest in or in connection withthe controversy, which might influence the client in the selection of the counsel.

"It is unprofessional to represent conflicting interests, except by express consent ofall concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts. Within the meaning of thisCanon, a lawyer represents conflicting interests when in behalf of one of theclients, it is his duty to contend for that which duty to another clientrequires him to oppose." (emphasis supplied)

An attorney owes his client undivided allegiance. Because of the highly fiduciary nature ofthe attorney-client relationship, sound public policy dictates that a lawyer be prohibited fromrepresenting conflicting interests or discharging inconsistent duties. He may not, without

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/apr2002/ac_4354_2002.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/apr2002/ac_4354_2002.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/apr2002/ac_4354_2002.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/apr2002/ac_4354_2002.html#fnt20

8/3/2019 CASES 01-22-2012

24/45

being guilty of professional misconduct, act as counsel for a person whose interest conflictswith that of his present or former client. Indeed, good faith and honest intention on the partof the erring lawyer does not make this rule inoperative.21 The lawyer is an officer of thecourt and his actions are governed by the uncompromising rules of professional ethics.

Thus:

"The relations of attorney and client is founded on principles of public policy, on goodtaste. The question is not necessarily one of the rights of the parties, but as towhether the attorney has adhered to proper professional standard. With thesethoughts in mind, it behooves attorneys, like Ceasar's wife, not only to keep inviolatethe client's confidence, but also to avoid the appearance of treachery and double-dealing. Only thus can litigants be encouraged to entrust their secrets to theirattorneys which is of paramount importance in the administration of justice."22

The professional obligation of the lawyer to give his undivided attention and zeal for hisclient's cause is likewise demanded in the Code of Professional Responsibility. Inherentlydisadvantageous to his client's cause, representation by the lawyer of conflicting interestsrequires disclosure of all facts and consent of all the parties involved. Thus:

"CANON 15- All lawyers shall observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all his dealingsand transactions with his clients.

xxx

Rule 15.03- A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by writtenconsent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts."

While the Resolution of the IBP is purely recommendatory, we find no reason to reverse thesame. In disciplinary proceedings against members of the bar, only clear preponderance ofevidence is required to establish liability. As long as the evidence presented by complainantor that taken judicial notice of by the Court is more convincing and worthy of belief than that

which is offered in opposition thereto, the imposition of disciplinary sanction is justified.

23

A perusal of Echavia's Answer to the Amended Complaint shows that it indeed conflicts withthe complainant's claims. It reads:

"1. The allegations (sic) in Paragraph One (1) of the Complaint is admitted in so far asit pertains to the personal circumstance and residence of the answering defendant.

The rest of the allegations in Paragraph One (1), and all the allegations in ParagraphTwo (2) , THREE (3), FOUR (4), FIVE (5), SIX (6), ELEVEN (11), TWELVE (12), andFOURTEEN (14), of the Complaint are DENIED for lack of knowledge sufficient to forma belief as to the truth of such allegations."24

By way of prayer, Echavia states:

"WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that after hearing, judgment be rendereddismissing plaintiff's complaint."25

Anent the authorship by the respondent of the document quoted above, the InvestigatingCommittee found the testimonies of the complainant and Echavia credible as opposed torespondent's bare denial. As pointed out by Echavia, he was approached by Atty. Maderazo,introduced himself as his lawyer and after some sessions in the latter's office, asked him to

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/apr2002/ac_4354_2002.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/apr2002/ac_4354_2002.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/apr2002/ac_4354_2002.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/apr2002/ac_4354_2002.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/apr2002/ac_4354_2002.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/apr2002/ac_4354_2002.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/apr2002/ac_4354_2002.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/apr2002/ac_4354_2002.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/apr2002/ac_4354_2002.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/apr2002/ac_4354_2002.html#fnt25

8/3/2019 CASES 01-22-2012

25/45

return and sign a document which he later identified as the Answer to the AmendedComplaint.

The Investigating Committee found respondent's defense weak. Respondent did not botherto present his secretary as witness, nor obtain her affidavit to prove his allegations. Instead,he offered a convenient excuse--- that he cannot anymore locate his secretary.

Respondent argued that it was the complainant who asked him to prepare Echavia's Answerto the Amended Complaint, after reaching an agreement whereby Echavia would testify infavor of the complainant. After he declined the request, he claimed that it was thecomplainant who prepared the document and asked his secretary to print the same. But asshown, Echavia's Answer to the Amended Complaint was in no way favorable to thecomplainant.

With the dismissal of Civil Case No. 13666, Echavia is practically off the hook. We cannotfind any reason why Echavia would commit perjury and entangle himself, once again, withthe law. He does not stand to profit at all by accusing the respondent falsely.

Furthermore, considering complainant's stature and lack of legal education, we can not see

how she could have prepared Echavia's Answer to the Amended Complaint and device alegal maneuver as complicated as the present case.

Respondent's attack on the credibility of Investigating Commissioner Ingles to render animpartial decision, having been an adversary in Civil Case No. R-33277, does not convinceus to grant new trial. This is the first time that respondent questions the membership ofCommissioner Ingles in the Investigating Committee. If respondent really believed in goodfaith that Commissioner Ingles would be biased and prejudiced, he should have asked forthe latter's inhibition at the first instance. Moreover, we could not find a