Scribd
Upload
1K views2 pages

Samson Vs Era

Ferdinand Samson brought a complaint against lawyer Edgardo Era for violating client trust by representing Emilia Sison against Samson's interests. Samson had hired Era to represent him and his relatives in a criminal case against Sison for her role in a pyramid scheme. However, Era later began representing Sison in other criminal cases involving the same pyramid scheme. The investigating body found Era guilty of misconduct for representing conflicting interests without consent. The Supreme Court affirmed the findings and suspended Era from practice for two years.

Uploaded by

Wella Jane
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
1K views2 pages

Samson Vs Era

Ferdinand Samson brought a complaint against lawyer Edgardo Era for violating client trust by representing Emilia Sison against Samson's interests. Samson had hired Era to represent him and his relatives in a criminal case against Sison for her role in a pyramid scheme. However, Era later began representing Sison in other criminal cases involving the same pyramid scheme. The investigating body found Era guilty of misconduct for representing conflicting interests without consent. The Supreme Court affirmed the findings and suspended Era from practice for two years.

Uploaded by

Wella Jane
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Ferdinand A. Samson brought complaint for disbarment charging respondent Atty. Edgardo O.

Era with violation of trust and confidence of a client by representing the interest of Emilia C. Sison, his present client, in a manner that blatantly conflicted with his interest. Samson and his relatives were among the investors who fell prey to the pyramiding scam perpetrated by ICS Exports led by Sison and other officers. Samson engaged Atty. Era to represent and assist him and his relatives in the criminal prosecution of Sison and her group. After an amicable settlement and several negotiations with Sison and her cohorts, Atty. Era expressed that he already accomplished his professional responsibility towards Samson. They also later found out that they could not liquidate the property subject to the amicable settlement.

During the hearings in the RTC, Atty. Era did not anymore appear for Samson and his group. They found out that Atty. Era had already been entering his appearance as the counsel for Sison in her other criminal cases involving the same pyramiding scam.

iSSUE: Is atty. Era guilty of misconduct for representing conflicting interests of his clients? Is there a formal termination of the lawyer-client relationship with Samson? RULING: The Investigating Commissioner of the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) found Atty. Era guilty. It is recommended that respondent be SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months and WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar act would merit a more severe penalty. SC affirmed the findings of the IBP. The lawyer-client relationship did not terminate, for the fact remained that he still needed to oversee the implementation of the settlement as well as to proceed with the criminal cases until they were dismissed or otherwise concluded by the trial court.

In his petition for disbarment, Samson charged Atty. Era with violating Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility for representing conflicting interests of his clients. Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that: A lawyer shall not

represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts.

WHEREFORE, the Court FINDS and PRONOUNCES Atty. EDGARDO O. ERA guilty of violating Rule 15.03 of Canon 15, and Canon 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility; and SUSPENDS him from the practice of law for two years effective upon his receipt of the decision, with a warning that his commission of a similar offense will be dealt with more severely.

You might also like