EN BANC

[A.C. No. 6664. July 16, 2013.]

FERDINAND A. SAMSON , complainant, vs . ATTY. EDGARDO O. ERA ,

respondent.

DECISION

BERSAMIN , J : p

An attorney who wittingly represents and serves con icting interests may be
suspended from the practice of law, or even disbarred when circumstances so warrant.
Antecedents
Ferdinand A. Samson has brought this complaint for disbarment charging
respondent Atty. Edgardo O. Era with violation of his trust and con dence 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, Inc. Exporter, Importer, and Multi-Level Marketing
Business (ICS Corporation), a corporation whose corporate o cers were led by Sison. The
other o cers were Ireneo C. Sison, William C. Sison, Mimosa H. Zamudio, Mirasol H.
Aguilar and Jhun Sison.
Samson engaged Atty. Era to represent and assist him and his relatives in the
criminal prosecution of Sison and her group. Pursuant to the engagement, Atty. Era
prepared the demand letter dated July 19, 2002 demanding the return or refund of the
money subject of their complaints. He also prepared the complaint-a davit that Samson
signed and swore to on July 26, 2002. Subsequently, the complaint-a davit charging
Sison and the other corporate o cials of ICS Corporation with several counts of estafa 1
was presented to the O ce of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City (OCPQC). After the
preliminary investigation, the OCPQC formally charged Sison and the others with several
counts of estafa in the Regional Trial Court, Branch 96 (RTC), in Quezon City. 2
cDCaTS

In April 2003, Atty. Era called a meeting with Samson and his relatives to discuss the
possibility of an amicable settlement with Sison and her cohorts. He told Samson and the
others that undergoing a trial of the cases would just be a waste of time, money and effort
for them, and that they could settle the cases with Sison and her group, with him
guaranteeing the turnover to them of a certain property located in Antipolo City belonging
to ICS Corporation in exchange for their desistance. They acceded and executed the
a davit of desistance he prepared, and in turn they received a deed of assignment
covering land registered under Transfer Certi cate of Title No. R-4475 executed by Sison
in behalf of ICS Corporation. 3
Samson and his relatives later demanded from Atty. Era that they be given instead a
deed of absolute sale to enable them to liquidate the property among themselves. It took
some period of negotiations between them and Atty. Era before the latter delivered to
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 them on November 27, 2003 ve copies of a deed of absolute sale involving the property.
However, Atty. Era told them that whether or not the title of the property had been
encumbered or free from lien or defect would no longer be his responsibility. He further
told them that as far as he was concerned he had already accomplished his professional
responsibility towards them upon the amicable settlement of the cases between them and
ICS Corporation. 4
When Samson and his co-complainants veri ed the title of the property at the
Registry of Deeds and the Assessor's O ce of Antipolo City, they were dismayed to learn
that they could not liquidate the property because it was no longer registered under the
name of ICS Corporation but was already under the name of Bank Wise Inc. 5 Upon their
urging, Atty. Era negotiated as their counsel with ICS Corporation.ESCTIA

Due to the silence of Atty. Era for sometime thereafter, Samson and his group wrote
to him on September 8, 2004 to remind him about his guarantee and the promise to settle
the issues with Sison and her cohorts. But they did not hear from Atty. Era at all. 6
During the hearings in the RTC, Atty. Era did not anymore appear for Samson and his
group. This forced them to engage another lawyer. They were shocked to nd out later on,
however, that Atty. Era had already been entering his appearance as the counsel for Sison
in her other criminal cases in the other branches of the RTC in Quezon City involving the
same pyramiding scam that she and her ICS Corporation had perpetrated. 7 In this regard,
they established Atty. Era's legal representation of Sison by submitting several certi ed
copies of the minutes of the proceedings in the criminal cases involving Sison and her
group issued by Branch 102 and Branch 220 of the RTC in Quezon City showing that Atty.
Era had appeared as the counsel of Sison in the cases for estafa pending and being tried in
said courts. 8 They also submitted a certi cation issued on November 3, 2004 indicating
that Atty. Era had visited Sison, an inmate in the Female Dormitory in Camp Karingal,
Sikatuna Village, Quezon City as borne out by the blotter logbook of that unit. 9
On January 20, 2005, Samson executed an a davit alleging the foregoing
antecedents, and praying for Atty. Era's disbarment on the ground of his violation of the
trust, confidence and respect reposed in him as their counsel. 10
Upon being required by the Court to comment on the complaint against him within
10 days from notice, Atty. Era several times sought the extension of his period to le the
comment to supposedly enable him to collate documents relevant to his comment. 11 The
Court granted his request and allowed him an extension totalling 40 days. But despite the
lapse of the extended period, he did not file his comment.
On September 27, 2005, Samson reiterated his complaint for disbarment against
Atty. Era. 12
By its resolution dated March 1, 2006, 13 the Court required Atty. Era to show cause
why he should not be disciplinarily dealt with or held in contempt for such failure to submit
his comment. DaScHC

In the comment that he subsequently led on April 11, 2006 in the O ce of the Bar
Con dant, 14 Atty. Era alleged that the conclusion on April 23, 2002 of the compromise
settlement between Samson and his group, on one hand, and Sison and her ICS
Corporation, on the other, had terminated the lawyer-client relationship between him and
Samson and his group; and that on September 1, 2003, he had been appointed as counsel
de o cio for Sison by Branch 102 of the RTC in Quezon City only for purposes of her
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 arraignment.
On July 17, 2006, the Court referred the case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
(IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation. 15
In his report and recommendation dated October 1, 2007, 16 the Investigating
Commissioner of the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) found Atty. Era guilty of
misconduct for representing con icting interests, for failing to serve his clients with
competence and diligence, and for failing to champion his clients' cause with wholehearted
fidelity, care and devotion.
The Investigating Commissioner observed that the evidence did not sustain Atty.
Era's claim that his legal services as counsel for Samson and his group had terminated on
April 23, 2003 upon the execution of the compromise settlement of the criminal cases;
that he even admitted during the mandatory conference that there was no formal
termination of his legal services; 17 that his professional obligation towards Samson and
his group as his clients did not end upon execution of the settlement agreement, because
he remained duty-bound to see to it that the settlement was duly implemented; that he
also had the obligation to appear in the criminal cases until their termination; and that his
acceptance of the engagement to appear in behalf of Sison invited suspicion of his double-
dealing and unfaithfulness.
The Investigating Commissioner recommended that Atty. Era be suspended from
the practice of law for six months, viz.: ETIcHa

From the foregoing, it is clear that respondent is guilty of misconduct for

representing con icting interests, failing to serve his client, complainant herein,
with competence and diligence and champion the latter's cause with
wholehearted delity, care and devotion. It is respectfully 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. 18

In Resolution No. XVIII-2007-195 passed on October 19, 2007, 19 the IBP Board of
Governors adopted and approved the report and recommendation of the Investigating
Commissioner of the IBP-CBD, with the modi cation that Atty. Era be suspended from the
practice of law for two years.
On June 9, 2012, the IBP Board of Governors passed Resolution No. XX-2012-180,
20denying Atty. Era's motion for reconsideration and a rming Resolution No. XVIII-2007-
195.
The IBP Board of Governors then forwarded the case to the Court pursuant to
Section 12 (b), Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court. 21
On October 17, 2012, Atty. Era led a Manifestation and Motion (With Leave of
Court). 22 However, on November 26, 2012, the Court merely noted the manifestation, and
denied the motion for its lack of merit. 23
Ruling
We affirm the findings of the IBP. AHaETS

In his petition for disbarment, Samson charged Atty. Era with violating Canon 15 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility for representing con icting interests by accepting
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 the responsibility of representing Sison in the cases similar to those in which he had
undertaken to represent Samson and his group, notwithstanding that Sison was the very
same person whom Samson and his group had accused with Atty. Era's legal assistance.
He had drafted the demand letters and the complaint-a davit that became the bases for
the filing of the estafa charges against Sison and the others in the RTC in Quezon City.
Atty. Era's contention that the lawyer-client relationship ended when Samson and his
group entered into the compromise settlement with Sison on April 23, 2002 was
unwarranted. The lawyer-client relationship did not terminate as of then, 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. It is also relevant to indicate that the execution of a compromise settlement
in the criminal cases did not ipso facto cause the termination of the cases not only
because the approval of the compromise by the trial court was still required, but also
because the compromise would have applied only to the civil aspect, and excluded the
criminal aspect pursuant to Article 2034 of the Civil Code. 24
Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that: "A
lawyer shall not represent con icting interests except by written consent of all concerned
given after a full disclosure of the facts." Atty. Era thus owed to Samson and his group
entire devotion to their genuine interest, and warm zeal in the maintenance and defense of
their rights. 25 He was expected to exert his best efforts and ability to preserve the clients'
cause, for the unwavering loyalty displayed to his clients likewise served the ends of
justice. 26
In Hornilla v. Atty. Salunat , 27 the Court discussed the concept of con ict of interest
in this wise: HaTAEc

There is con ict of interest when a lawyer represents inconsistent interests

of two or more opposing parties. The test is "whether or not in behalf of one client,
it is the lawyer's duty to ght for an issue or claim, but it is his duty to oppose it
for the other client. In brief, if he argues for one client, this argument will be
opposed by him when he argues for the other client." This rule covers not only
cases in which con dential communications have been con ded, but also those
in which no con dence has been bestowed or will be used. Also, there is con ict
of interests if the acceptance of the new retainer will require the attorney to
perform an act which will injuriously affect his rst client in any matter in which
he represents him and also whether he will be called upon in his new relation to
use against his rst client any knowledge acquired through their connection.
Another test of the inconsistency of interests is whether the acceptance of a new
relation will prevent an attorney from the full discharge of his duty of undivided
delity and loyalty to his client or invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double
dealing in the performance thereof. 28

The prohibition against con ict of interest rests on ve rationales, rendered as

follows:
. . . . First, the law seeks to assure clients that their lawyers will represent
them with undivided loyalty. A client is entitled to be represented by a lawyer
whom the client can trust. Instilling such con dence is an objective important in
itself. . . . .

Second, the prohibition against con icts of interest seeks to enhance the
effectiveness of legal representation. To the extent that a con ict of interest
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 undermines the independence of the lawyer's professional judgment or inhibits a
lawyer from working with appropriate vigor in the client's behalf, the client's
expectation of effective representation . . . could be compromised.

Third, a client has a legal right to have the lawyer safeguard the client's
con dential information . . . . Preventing use of con dential client information
against the interests of the client, either to bene t the lawyer's personal interest, in
aid of some other client, or to foster an assumed public purpose is facilitated
through conflicts rules that reduce the opportunity for such abuse.
Fourth, con icts rules help ensure that lawyers will not exploit clients, such
as by inducing a client to make a gift to the lawyer . . . .

Finally, some con ict-of-interest rules protect interests of the legal system
in obtaining adequate presentations to tribunals. In the absence of such rules, for
example, a lawyer might appear on both sides of the litigation, complicating the
process of taking proof and compromise adversary argumentation . . . . 29

The rule prohibiting con ict of interest was fashioned to prevent situations wherein
a lawyer would be representing a client whose interest is directly adverse to any of his
present or former clients. In the same way, a lawyer may only be allowed to represent a
client involving the same or a substantially related matter that is materially adverse to the
former client only if the former client consents to it after consultation. 30 The rule is
grounded in the duciary obligation of loyalty. 31 Throughout the course of a lawyer-client
relationship, the lawyer learns all the facts connected with the client's case, including the
weak and strong points of the case. Knowledge and information gathered in the course of
the relationship must be treated as sacred and guarded with care. It behooves lawyers not
only to keep inviolate the client's con dence, but also to avoid the appearance of treachery
and double-dealing, for only then can litigants be encouraged to entrust their secrets to
their lawyers, which is paramount in the administration of justice. 32 The nature of that
relationship is, therefore, one of trust and confidence of the highest degree. 33 EDIHSC

Contrary to Atty. Era's ill-conceived attempt to explain his disloyalty to Samson and
his group, the termination of the attorney-client relationship does not justify a lawyer to
represent an interest adverse to or in con ict with that of the former client. The spirit
behind this rule is that the client's con dence once given should not be stripped by the
mere expiration of the professional employment. Even after the severance of the relation, a
lawyer should not do anything that will injuriously affect his former client in any matter in
which the lawyer previously represented the client. Nor should the lawyer disclose or use
any of the client's con dences acquired in the previous relation. 34 In this regard, Canon 17
of the Code of Professional Responsibility expressly declares that: "A lawyer owes delity
to the cause of his client and he shall be mindful of the trust and con dence reposed in
him."
The lawyer's highest and most unquestioned duty is to protect the client at all
hazards and costs even to himself. 35 The protection given to the client is perpetual and
does not cease with the termination of the litigation, nor is it affected by the client's
ceasing to employ the attorney and retaining another, or by any other change of relation
between them. It even survives the death of the client. 3 6
In the absence of the express consent from Samson and his group after full
disclosure to them of the con ict of interest, therefore, the most ethical thing for Atty. Era
to have done was either to outrightly decline representing and entering his appearance as
counsel for Sison, or to advice Sison to engage another lawyer for herself. Unfortunately,
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 he did neither, and should now suffer the proper sanction. aESTAI

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 this decision, with a warning that his commission of a similar offense will be
dealt with more severely.
Let copies of this decision be included in the personal record of Atty. EDGARDO O.
ERA and entered in his file in the Office of the Bar Confidant.
Let copies of this decision be disseminated to all lower courts by the O ce of the
Court Administrator, as well as to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for its guidance.
SO ORDERED .
Sereno, C.J., Carpio, Velasco, Jr., Leonardo-de Castro, Peralta, Del Castillo, Abad,
Villarama, Jr., Perez, Mendoza, Reyes, Perlas-Bernabe and Leonen, JJ., concur.
Brion, J., is on leave.

Footnotes
1.Rollo, Vol. I, pp. 9-11.
2.Rollo, Vol. III, p. 4.
3.Rollo, Vol. I, pp. 97-99.

4.Id. at 2
5.Id. at 96.
6.Id. at 16.
7.Id. at 65-71.
8.Id. at 23-30.

9.Id. at 18-30.
10.Id. at 1-3.
11.Id. at 32-37.
12.Id. at 62-63.
13.Id. at 79.

14.Id. at 80-82.
15.Id. at 117.
16.Rollo, Vol. III, pp. 2-15.
17.Id. at 9.

18.Id. at 15.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com

 19.Id. at 1.

20.Id. at 49.
21.Section 12 (b). If the Board, by the vote of a majority of its total membership, determines
that the respondent should be suspended from the practice of law or disbarred, it shall
issue a resolution setting forth its findings and recommendations which, together with
the whole record of the case, shall forthwith be transmitted to the Supreme Court for
final action.
22.Temporary rollo, pp. 2-14.
23.Rollo, Vol. III, pp. 67-68.
24.The Civil Code states in Article 2034 that: "There may be a compromise upon the civil
liability arising from an offense; but such compromise shall not extinguish the public
action for the imposition of the legal penalty. (1813)."
25.Agpalo, R., Legal Ethics, 1989, 4th Edition, p. 157.
26.Reyes v. Vitan, A.C. No. 5835, April 15, 2005, 456 SCRA 87, 90.
27.A.C. No. 5804, July 1, 2003, 405 SCRA 220.

28.Id. at 223.
29.Law Governing Lawyers, Restatement of the Law Third, Volume 2, 2000 Edition, American
Law Institute, Washington D.C., §121.
30.Heirs of Lydio "Jerry" Falame v. Baguio, A.C. No. 6876, March 7, 2008, 548 SCRA 1, 13.
31.Kauffman, K. D., Legal Ethics, Delmar Learning, 2004, pp. 174-175, 207.
32.Hilado v. David, 84 Phil. 569, 579 (1949) cited in Quiambao v. Bamba, A.C. No. 6708, August
25, 2005, 468 SCRA 1, 9-10.
33.Perez v. De la Torre, A.C. No. 6160, March 30, 2006, 485 SCRA 547, 551.
34.Agpalo, The Code of Professional Responsibility for Lawyers, 1991, 1st Edition p. 167, citing
Nombrado v. Hernandez, Adm. Case No. 555, November 25, 1968, 26 SCRA 13, Natam v.
Capule, 91 Phil. 640 (1952), San Jose v. Cruz, 57 Phil. 792 (1933) and Hilado v. David,
84 Phil. 569 (1949).
35.Id. at 199, citing Watkins v. Sedberry , 261 U.S. 571, 67 L. ed. 802 (1923).
36.Bun Siong Yao v. Aurelio, A.C. No. 7023, March 30, 2006, 485 SCRA 553, 560.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com