LEGAL ETHICS

[c.] DAGING vs. DAVIS Opposition to the Prayer for the Issuance of a Writ of Preliminary
A.C. No. 9395, November 12, 2014 Injunction.
by de la Cruz, Rex Mikey  In his Comment, respondent Atty Davis denied participation in the
takeover or acting as a business partner of Balageo in the operation of
This administrative complaint for disbarment arose from an Affidavit the bar. He asserted that Balageo is the sole proprietress of the
Complaint filed by Daria O. Daging (complainant) before the IBP, Benguet establishment. He insisted that it was Atty. Sabling, his partner, who
Chapter, against Atty. Riz Tingalon L. Davis (respondent). initiated the proposal and was in fact the one who was able to convince
FACTS: complainant to accept the law office as her retainer. Respondent
 Complainant was the owner and operator of Nashville Country Music maintained that he never obtained any knowledge or information
Lounge. She leased from Benjie Pinlac (Pinlac) a building space where regarding the business of complainant who used to consult only Atty.
she operated the bar. Sabling. Respondent admitted though having represented Balageo in
the ejectment case, but denied that he took advantage of the Retainer
 Meanwhile, complainant received a Retainer Proposal from Davis & Agreement between complainant and Davis and Sabling Law Office.
Sabling Law Office signed by respondent and his partner Atty. Amos  Investigating Commissioner: rendered a Report and
Saganib Sabling (Atty. Sabling). This eventually resulted in the signing Recommendation finding respondent guilty of betrayal of his client's
by the complainant, the respondent and Atty. Sabling of a Retainer trust and for misuse of information obtained from his client to the
Agreement. disadvantage of the latter and to the advantage of another person. He
recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law
 Daging was delinquent in paying the monthly rentals, Pinlac (lessor) for a period of one year.
terminated the lease. Together with Novie Balageo (Balageo) and
respondent, Pinlac went to complainant's music bar, inventoried all the  IBP Board of Governors: adopted and approved the Report and
equipment therein, and informed her that Balageo would take over the Recommendation. Upon motion of the respondent, it reduced the
operation of the bar. Complainant averred that subsequently penalty imposed to six months suspension considering that there is no
respondent Atty. Davis acted as business partner of Balageo in proof that respondent actually handled any previous legal matters
operating the bar under her business name, which they later renamed involving complainant.
Amarillo Music Bar. ISSUE: WON Atty. Davis should be suspended. [YES]
RULING:
 Complainant alleged that she filed an ejectment case against Pinlac  It is undisputed that complainant entered into a Retainer Agreement
and Balageo before the MTCC, Branch 1, Baguio City. At that time, dated March 7, 2005 with respondent's law firm. This agreement was
Davis & Sabling Law Office was still her counsel as their Retainer signed by the respondent and attached to the rollo of this case. And
Agreement remained subsisting and in force. during the subsistence of said Retainer Agreement, respondent
represented and defended Balageo, who was impleaded as one of the
defendants in the ejectment case complainant filed before the MTCC of
 However, respondent Atty. Davis appeared as counsel for Balageo in
Baguio City. In fact, respondent filed on behalf of said Balageo. It was
that ejectment case and filed, on behalf of the latter, an Answer with
only on August 26, 2005 when respondent withdrew his appearance for
Balageo.

DE LA CRUZ, REX MIKEY 1

 LEGAL ETHICS

 Based on the established facts, it is indubitable that respondent advantage of any information acquired by his law firm in the course of
transgressed Rule 15.03 of Canon 15 of the Code of Professional its professional dealings with the complainant, even assuming it to be
Responsibility. It provides: true, is of no moment.
 Undeniably aware of the fact that complainant is a client of his law
Rule 15.03 - A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests firm, respondent should have immediately informed both the
except by written consent of all concerned given after a full complainant and Balageo that he, as well as the other members of his
disclosure of the facts. law firm, cannot represent any of them in their legal tussle; otherwise,
they would be representing conflicting interests and violate the Code
"A lawyer may not, without being guilty of professional of Professional Responsibility. Indeed, respondent could have simply
misconduct, act as counsel for a person whose interest conflicts advised both complainant and Balageo to instead engage the services
with that of his present or former client." The prohibition against of another lawyer.
representing conflicting interests is absolute and the rule applies  The penalty for representing conflicting interests may either be
even if the lawyer has acted in good faith and with no intention to reprimand or suspension from the practice of law ranging from six
represent conflicting interests. months to two years. We thus adopt the recommendation of the IBP
Board of Governors of suspension for six (6) months.
In Quiambao v. Atty. Bamba, this Court emphasized that
lawyers are expected not only to keep inviolate the client's  Atty. Riz Tingalon L. Davis is found GUILTY of violating Rule 15.03,
confidence, but also to avoid the appearance of treachery and Canon 15 of the CPR and is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of
double-dealing for only then can litigants be encouraged to entrust law for a period of six (6) months.
their secrets to their lawyers, which is of paramount importance in
the administration of justice.

 Respondent argues that while complainant is a client of Davis &

Sabling Law office, her case is actually handled only by his partner
Atty. Sabling. He was not privy to any transaction between Atty.
Sabling and complainant and has no knowledge of any information or
legal matter complainant entrusted or confided to his law partner. He
thus inveigles that he could not have taken advantage of an
information obtained by his law firm by virtue of the Retainer
Agreement.
 We are not impressed.
 In Hilado v. David, reiterated in Gonzales v. Atty. Cabucana, Jr.,
this Court held that a lawyer who takes up the cause of the adversary
of the party who has engaged the services of his law firm brings the
law profession into public disrepute and suspicion and undermines the
integrity of justice. Thus, respondent's argument that he never took

DE LA CRUZ, REX MIKEY 2