FRANCISCO vs.

ATTY PORTUGAL IN RE: ATTY ADRIANO

Facts: FACTS
1. SPO1 Ernesto C. Francisco, SPO1 Donato F. Tan and PO3 Rolando M. Emigio Estebia was convicted of rape by the CFI of Samar, and sentenced to
Joaquin were involved in a shooting incident which resulted in the death of two suffer the capital punishment. His case came up before this Court on review.
individuals and the serious injury of another. Informations were filed against Lope E. Adriano, a member of the Bar, was appointed by this Court as Estebia's
them before the Sandiganbayan for murder and frustrated murder. counsel de oficio. Adriano received his notice of appointment on December 20,
1966. He sought for extensions to file appellants brief five (5) times plus a 5 day
2. Complainants engaged the services of Atty. Portugal for the accused. Atty. special extension. The first extension was on January 19, 1967, Adriano sought
Portugal then filed a Motion for Reconsideration and an Urgent Motion for for a 30-day extension to file the brief in mimeographed form. On February 18,
Leave to File Second Motion for Reconsideration, as well as a Petition for Adriano again moved for a 20-day extension. A third extension was filed on
Review on Certiorari. March 8 for 15-days, Adriano claimed that it was more than half-way through
and that additional time is needed to review, correct and put it in final form. The
3. Complainants never heard from Atty. Portugal again despite the frequent fourth extension was filed on March27, also for 15 days, Adriano claimed that
telephone calls they made to his office. When respondent did not return their additional time was needed to redraft and rehash the brief and have it stencilled
phone inquiries, complainants went to Atty. Portugal’s last known address only and mimeographed. He moved for a "last" extension of 10 days on April 11
to find out that he had moved out without any forwarding address. because he suddenly got sick which hampered and interrupted his work. On
April 21, a special extension of five days was filed in order to put said brief in
4. More than a year after the petition was filed, complainants were constrained final form and have it stencilled and mimeographed. All these motions for
to personally verify the status of the petition for Certiorari as they had neither extension were granted but no brief was filed On September 25, 1967, Adriano
news from respondent about the case nor knowledge of his whereabouts. was ordered to show cause within ten days from notice thereof why disciplinary
action should not be taken against him for failure to file appellant's brief.
5. They were shocked to discover that the Court had already issued a Resolution Adriano did not bother to give any explanation, thus the court imposed a P500
denying the petition for late filing and non-payment of docket fees. fine payable to the court. Counsel paid no heed. On December 5, 1968, Adriano
Complainants also learned that the said Resolution had attained finality and was ordered again to show because why he should not be suspended from
warrants of arrest had already been issued against the accused because practice of law. The resolution was personally served upon him on December
respondent, whose whereabouts remained unknown, did nothing to prevent the 18, but it was ignored.
reglementary period for seeking reconsideration from lapsing.
ISSUE:
6. Respondent states that it is of vital significance that the Court notes that he Whether or not Atty. Adriano rendered the required service as a counsel de
was not the original counsel of the accused. He was merely requested by the oficio
original counsel to be on hand, assist the accused, and be present at the
promulgation of the Sandiganbayan decision. HELD
No.  By specific authority, this Court may assign an attorney to render
7. Respondent claims that there was no formal engagement undertaken by the professional aid to a destitute appellant in a criminal case who is unable to
parties. But only because of his sincere effort. He asserts that because of all the employ an attorney. Correspondingly, a duty is imposed upon the lawyer so
efforts he put into the case of the accused, his other professional obligations assigned "to render the required service."  A lawyer so appointed "as counsel for
were neglected and that all these were done without proper and adequate an indigent prisoner", our Canons of Professional Ethics demand, "should
remuneration. always exert his best efforts" in the indigent's behalf. 

8. Respondent states that he has asked the accused that he be discharged from It is true that he is a court-appointed counsel. But we do say that as such counsel
the case and endorsed the Notice of Withdrawal to PO3 Joaquin for the latter to de oficio, he has as high a duty to the accused as one employed and paid by
file with the Court. Unfortunately, PO3 Joaquin did not do so. defendant himself. Because, as in the case of the latter, he must exercise his best
efforts and professional ability in behalf of the person assigned to his care. His is
Issue: to render effective assistance. The accused defendant expects of him due
Did Atty. Portugal violate the Code of Professional Responsibility by his sudden diligence, not mere perfunctory representation. We do not accept the paradox
withdrawal and disappearance? that responsibility is less where the defended party is poor. It has been said that
courts should "have no hesitancy in demanding high standards of duty of
Held: attorneys appointed to defend indigent persons charged with crime."  For,
1. Yes. As to respondent’s conduct in dealing with the accused and indeed, a lawyer who is a vanguard in the bastion of justice is expected to have a
complainants, he definitely fell short of the high standard of assiduousness that a bigger dose of social conscience and a little less of self interest. Because of this,
counsel must perform to safeguard the rights of his clients. a lawyer should remain ever conscious of his duties to the indigent he defends.

2. Had respondent truly intended to withdraw his appearance for the accused, he
as a lawyer who is presumably steeped in court procedures and practices, should
have filed the notice of withdrawal himself instead of the accused.

3. The rule in this jurisdiction is that a client has the absolute right to terminate
the attorney-client relation at anytime with or without cause. The right of an
attorney to withdraw or terminate the relation other than for sufficient cause is,
however, considerably restricted. Among the fundamental rules of ethics is the
principle that an attorney who undertakes to conduct an action impliedly
stipulates to carry it to its conclusion. He is not at liberty to abandon it without
reasonable cause. A lawyer’s right to withdraw from a case before its final
adjudication arises only from the client’s written consent or from a good cause.

4. Once he agrees to take up the cause of the client, the lawyer owes fidelity to
such cause and must always be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in
him.

5. After agreeing to take up the cause of a client, a lawyer owes fidelity to both
cause and client, even if the client never paid any fee for the attorney-client
relationship. Lawyering is not a business; it is a profession in which duty of
public service, not money, is the primary consideration.
6. Hence, even if respondent felt under-compensated in the case he undertook to
defend, his obligation embodied in the Lawyer’s Oath and the Code of
Professional Responsibility still remains unwavering. The zeal and the degree of
fervor in handling the case should neither diminish nor cease just because of his
perceived insufficiency of remuneration.
Perez vs. Atty. Dela Torre CANOY vs. ATTY. ORTIZ

Facts and Complaint: In December 2001, several suspects for murder and Facts
kidnapping for ransom, among them Sonny Boy Ilo and Diego Avila, were This is a case wherein complainant Elmer Canoy accused his former counsel,
apprehended and jailed by the police authorities. Respondent went to the Atty. Jose Max Ortiz of misconduct and malpractice. In 1998, Canoy filed a
municipal building of Calabanga where Ilo and Avila were being detained and complaint for illegal dismissal against his former employer, Coca Cola Bottlers
made representations that he could secure their freedom if they sign the prepared Philippines, and was represented in said case by Atty. Ortiz. Canoy, explained
extrajudicial confessions. unknown to the two accused, respondent was Ortiz, was one of his indigent clients, in that it was the latter’s practice since
representing the heirs of the murder victim; that on the strength of the commencing his practice of law to cater to indigent and law-income clients. In
extrajudicial confessions, cases were filed against them, including herein the labor case against CCBP filed with the National Labor Relations
complainant who was implicated in the extrajudicial confessions as the Commission, the labor arbiter ordered the parties to submit their respective
mastermind in the criminal activities for which they were being charged. petition papers. Canoy submitted all the necessary documents and records to
Atty. Ortiz for the preparation of the position paper. Canoy made several follow-
ups with the office of his attorney, said visits were unfruitful until it came to his
Defense: Respondent denied the accusations against him. He explained that
knowledge on 2000, upon inquiring with the NLRC itself, that his complaint was
while being detained at the Calabanga Municipal Police Jail, Avila sought his
already dismissed way back in 1998 for failure to prosecute because the parties
assistance in drafting an extrajudicial confession regarding his involvement in
did not submit their position papers. Atty. Canoy further claimed that Atty. Ortiz
the crimes of kidnapping for ransom, murder and robbery. He advised Avila to
never informed him about the status of his case nor of the fact that he failed to
inform his parents about his decision to make an extrajudicial confession,
submit the position paper.
apprised him of his constitutional rights and of the possibility that he might be
utilized as a state-witness.
In his Comment, Atty. Ortiz admitted to not being able to submit the position
Respondent claimed that when Ilo sought his assistance in executing his
paper because the period within which to file it lapsed already,
extrajudicial confession, he conferred with Ilo in the presence of his parents; and
with arbiter already dismissing the case, but reasoned out that his election as
only after he was convinced that Ilo was not under undue compulsion did he
a Councilor of Bacolod City made him very preoccupied with his functions. His
assist the accused in executing the extrajudicial confession.
duties as a public servant and a lawyer are “beyond physical limitation”, said
Atty. Ortiz, so he had to withdraw from his other cases. He also claimed of not
Ruling: Atty. Dela Torre is suspended for 3 years.
being able to remember whether he immediately informed Canoy of the
Under Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, a
dismissal of the case, but recalled of Canoy conveying that he already has a
lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all
lawyer to handle the case. Hence, his office did not insist on refiling the case.
concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts. Respondent is therefore duty
Atty Ortiz also pointed out that the dismissal of Canoy’s complaint was without
bound to refrain from representing two parties having conflicting interests in a
prejudice.
controversy. By doing precisely the foregoing, and without any proof that he
secured the written consent of both parties after explaining to them the existing
Issue
conflict of interest, respondent should be sanctioned.
Whether or not Atty. Ortiz is guilty of misconduct and malpractice
The prohibition against representing conflicting interest is founded
on principles of public policy and good taste. In the course of a lawyer-client
Ruling
relationship, the lawyer learns all the facts connected with the client’s case,
Upon investigation of the case, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines concluded
including the weak and strong points of the case. The nature of that relationship
that clearly “Atty. Ortiz failed to exercise the degree of competence and
is, therefore, one of trust and confidence of the highest degree. It behooves
diligence required of him in prosecuting his client” and recommended that Atty.
lawyers not only to keep inviolate the client’s confidence, but also to avoid the
Ortiz be reprimanded. The Supreme Court, however, finds the recommended
appearance of impropriety and double-dealing for only then can litigants be
penalty of the IBP too lenent and instead suspended Atty. Ortize from
encouraged to entrust their secrets to their lawyers, which is of paramount
the practice of law for one month, in lieu of the admonition or reprimand.
importance in the administration of justice.
According to the Court, Atty Ortiz several canons and rules in the Code
At the time respondent was representing Avila and Ilo, two of the
of Professional Responsibility. Specifically, Atty. Ortiz was guilty of violating
accused in the murder of the victim Resurreccion Barrios, he was representing
Rule 18.03 of the Code, which states, “A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter
the family of the murder victim. Clearly, his representation of opposing clients
entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him
in the murder case invites suspicion of double-dealing and infidelity to his
liable,” on account of his failure to file the position paper on time, tantamount to
clients. Respondent assisted in the execution by the two accused of their
neglecting a legal mater entrusted to him. That the case was dismissed without
confessions whereby they admitted their participation in various serious criminal
prejudice does not mitigate his liability. Further, Ortiz also violated Rule 22.02,
offenses knowing fully well that he was retained previously by the heirs of one
which states,“A laywer shall withdraw his services only for good cause and
of the victims. Respondent, who presumably knows the intricacies of the law,
upon notice appropriate in the circumstances.” Therefore, even if Atty. Ortiz was
should have exercised his better judgment before conceding to accused’s choice
justified in terminating his services due to his elective position, he should
of counsel. It did not cross his mind to inhibit himself from acting as their
have coordinated with the new council of Canoy and turned over to the latter all
counsel and instead, he even assisted them in executing the extrajudicial
papers and property which the Client is entitled and should have cooperated with
confession.
his successor in the orderly transfer of the matter, as per Rule 22.02.
AROMIN vs. BONCAVILA HORNILLA VS. ATTY. SALUNAT

FACTS: TOPIC: Conflict of Interest.

Complainants, Aromin, Yabut and Ballesteros, Jr., allege that their father,
Tiburcio Ballesteros, engaged the services of respondent Atty. Boncavil as Rule 15.03- A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except bywritten
counsel in two pending cadastral cases; despite receipt of the adverse decision in consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts.
the said cases, respondent did not inform herein complainants of the same nor
file either a motion for reconsideration or a notice of appeal to prevent the FACTS:
decision from becoming final; that respondent did not file either a written offer
of evidence despite the trial court’s directive f o r h im t o d o s o; a n d t ha t i t
to ok r e sp on de n t f o ur ye a r s f r o m th e ti me c o mp la in a n t’ s father  This administrative case is filed by BenedictoHornilla and Federico
died before he filed a motion to substitute herein complainants in the trial court. Ricafort against Atty.ErnestoSalunat for illegal and unethical practice
The foregoing acts and omissions of the respondent are alleged to be in violation and conflict of interest.
of the Code pf Professional Responsibility.
 Complainants alleged that respondent is a member of the ASSA Law
ISSUE: and Associates, which was the retained counsel of the Philippine
Did the respondent lawyer abandon complainants’ cases and thus violated the Public School Teachers Association (PPSTA).
Code of Professional Responsibility?
 Complainants, who are members of the PPSTA, filed an intra-
H E L D : corporate case against its members of the Board of Directors before
Y E S the Securities and Exchange Commission, which was docketed as
Respondent violated Canon 18 of the Code of Professi SEC Case No. 05-97-5657, and a complaint before the Office of the
o n a l Responsibility which provides that “a lawyer shall serve his client with Ombudsman, docketed as OMB Case No. 0-97-0695, for unlawful
competence and diligence.” By abandoning complainants’ cases, respondent spending and the undervalued sale of real property of the PPSTA.
violated Rule 18.03 of the same Code which requires that “a lawyer not neglect
a legal matter entrusted to him and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.”  Respondent entered his appearance as counsel for the PPSTA Board
  members in the said cases.
A lawyer owes entire devotion to the interest of the client, warm zeal in the
maintenance and defense of his client’s rights, and the exertion of his utmost
 Complainants contend that respondent was guilty of conflict of
learning and ability to the end that nothing taken or withheld from his client,
interest because he was engaged by the PPSTA, of which
save by the rules of law, legally applied. This simply means that his client
complainants were members, and was being paid out of its corporate
is entitled to the benefit of any and every remedy and defense that is authorized
funds where complainants have contributed. Despite being told by
by the law of the land and he may expect this lawyer to assert every such remedy or defense.
PPSTA members of the said conflict of interest, respondent refused
In case the respondent has been discharged as counsel, although not in accordance
to withdraw his appearance in the said cases.
with Rule 138, Section 26 of the rules of Court, he should have informed the trial court and asked that he be
allowed to withdraw from the cases. Until his dismissal or withdrawal is made of record, any judicial notice
sent to him was binding upon his clients even though as between them the professional relationship may  In his Answer, respondent stressed that he entered his appearance as
have been terminated. counsel for the PPSTA Board Members for and in behalf of the
ASSA Law and Associates.

 Respondent claims that it was complainant Atty. Ricafort who

instigated, orchestrated and indiscriminately filed the said cases
against members of the PPSTA and its Board. He denied that he
ensured the victory of the PPSTA Board in the case he was handling.
He merely assured the Board that the truth will come out and that the
case before the Ombudsman will be dismissed for lack of
jurisdiction,considering that respondents therein are not public
officials, but private employees.

Anent the SEC case, respondent alleged that the same was being handled by the
law firm of Atty. Eduardo de Mesa, and not ASSA.

ISSUE: Whether or not respondent was guilty of violating Rule 15.03 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) when he represented the assailed
directors of the corporation of which he is a retained counsel. Yes.
RULING: There is conflict 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 fight 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.

Respondent Atty. Ernesto Salunat is found GUILTY of representing conflicting

interests and is admonished to observe a higher degree of fidelity in the practice
of his profession. He is further warned that a repetition of the same or similar
acts will be dealt with more severely.
SAMSON VS ATTY ERA 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
FACTS: the maintenance and defense of their rights.He was expected to exert his best
The complainant and his relatives were among the investors who fell prey to the efforts and ability to preserve the clients’ cause, for the unwavering loyalty
pyramiding scam perpetrated by ICS Corporation led by Emilia Sison and displayed to his clients likewise served the ends of justice.
several others. They engaged the services of Atty. Era to represent and assist
him and his relatives in the prosecution of criminal case against Sison and her Contrary to Atty. Era’s ill-conceived attempt to explain his disloyalty to Samson
group. and his group, the termination of the attorney-client relationship does not justify
a lawyer to represent an interest adverse to or in conflict with that of the former
client. The spirit behind this rule is that the client’s confidence once given
Pursuant to the engagement, Atty. Era prepared the demand letter demanding the
should not be stripped by the mere expiration of the professional employment.
return or refund of the money subject of their complaints. He also prepared the Even after the severance of the relation, a lawyer should not do anything that
complaint-affidavit that Samson signed and swore to and subsequently presented will injuriously affect his former client in any matter in which the lawyer
to the Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City (OCPQC). After the previously represented the client. Nor should the lawyer disclose or use any of
preliminary investigation, the OCPQC formally charged Sison and the others the client’s confidences acquired in the previous relation. In this regard, Canon
with several counts of estafa in the Regional Trial Court, Branch 96 (RTC), in 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility expressly declares that: "A lawyer
Quezon City. owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be mindful of the trust and
confidence reposed in him."
In April 2003, Atty. Era called a meeting with Samson and his relatives to The lawyer’s highest and most unquestioned duty is to protect the client at all
discuss the possibility of an amicable settlement with Sison and her cohorts. He hazards and costs even to himself. The protection given to the client is perpetual
told Samson and the others that undergoing a trial of the cases would just be a and does not cease with the termination of the litigation, nor is it affected by the
waste of time, money and effort for them, and that they could settle the cases client’s ceasing to employ the attorney and retaining another, or by any other
with Sison and her group, with him guaranteeing the turnover to them of a change of relation between them. It even survives the death of the client.
certain property located in Antipolo City belonging to ICS Corporation in
In the absence of the express consent from Samson and his group after full
exchange for their desistance. They acceded and executed the affidavit of disclosure to them of the conflict of interest, therefore, the most ethical thing for
desistance he prepared, and in turn they received a deed of assignment covering Atty. Era to have done was either to outrightly decline representing and entering
land registered under Transfer Certificate of Title No. R-4475 executed by Sison his appearance as counsel for Sison, or to advice Sison to engage another lawyer
in behalf of ICS Corporation. for herself. Unfortunately, he did neither, and should now suffer the proper
sanction.
After an amicable settlement and several negotiations with Sison and her
WHEREFORE, the Court FINDS and PRONOUNCES Atty. EDGARDO O.
cohorts, Atty. Era expressedthat he already accomplished his professional
ERA guilty of violating Rule 15.03 of Canon 15, and Canon 17 of the Code of
responsibility towards Samson. They also later found outthat they could not Professional Responsibility; and SUSPENDS him from the practice of law for
liquidate the property subject to the amicable settlement.During the hearings in two years effective upon his receipt of this decision, with a warning that his
the RTC, Atty. Era did not anymore appear for Samson and his group. They commission of a similar offense will be dealt with more severely.
foundout that Atty. Era had already been entering his appearance as the counsel
for Sison in her othercriminal cases involving the same pyramiding scam.
NOTES:
On January 20, 2005, Samson executed an affidavit alleging the foregoing Prohibition against conflict of interest rests on 5 rationales, rendered as
antecedents and prayed for Atty. Era’s disbarment on the ground of his violation follows:
of the trust, confidence and respect reposed in him as their counsel.
1st : the law seeks to assure clients that their lawyers will represent them
Atty. Era was required to file his Comment. After several extensions, Atty. Era with undivided loyalty
finally filed his Comment on April 11, 2006 in the OBC. He alleged that the
lawyer-client relationship ended when Samson and his group entered into 2nd : the prohibition against conflicts of interest seeks to enhance the
the compromise settlement. effectiveness of legal representation

The case was referred to IBP for investigation, report and recommendation. 3rd : a client has a legal right to have the lawyer safeguard the client’s
confidential information
IBP Recommendation: the Investigating Commissioner found Atty. Era guilty 4th : conflicts rules help ensure that lawyers will not exploit clients, such as
of misconduct for representing conflicting interests, failing to serve his client by inducing a client to make a gift to the lawyer
with competence and diligence and champion the latter’s cause with
wholehearted fidelity, care and devotion – suspended from the practice of law 5th : some conflict-of-interest rules protect interests of the legal system in
for 6 months obtaining adequate presentations to tribunals.

IBP Board of Governors: adopted and approved the IBP recommendation with Reason: the rule is grounded in the fiduciary obligation of loyalty. The nature of
modification that Atty. Era be suspended from the practice of law for 2 years. their relationship is, therefore, one of trust and confidence of the highest
degree.
Issue:
Whether or not Atty. Era violated the Code of Professional Responsibility on
conflict of interests.

Ruling.
YES. The Supreme Court affirmed the findings of the IBP.

The lawyer-client relationship did not terminate when the parties entered into a
compromise settlement, 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.

Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides

that: "A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent
JALANDONI vs. VILLAROSA GONZALES vs. CABUCANA

 September 19, 1997, Lumot A. Jalandoni, Chairman/President of PRC was Facts: Gonzales was the complainant in a case for sum of money and damages filed before
sued before RTC, Branch 52 in Civil Case No. 97-9865. Jalandoni engaged the the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) of Santiago City, where she was represented by
legal services of herein respondent who formally entered his appearance on the law firm CABUCANA, CABUCANA, DE GUZMAN AND CABUCANA LAW
October 2, 1997 as counsel for the defendants. Respondent as a consequence of OFFICE, with Atty. EdmarCabucana handling the case and herein respondent as an
said Attorney-Client relationship represented Jalandoni et al in the entire associate/partner.
proceedings of said case.
A decision was rendered in the civil case ordering the losing party to pay Gonzales the
 On April 06, 1999, respondent entered his appearance through a amount of P17,310.00 with interest and P6,000.00 as attorney’s fees; Sheriff Romeo
letter expressly stating that effective said date he was appearing as counsel for Gatcheco, failed to fully implement the writ of execution issued in connection with the
Sps. Jalbuena and Delfin for the Estafa case filed by the corporation (PRC) judgment which prompted Gonzales to file a complaint against the said sheriff.
against them. 
 On April 27, 1999 respondent, without due notice prior to a scheduled hearing, Sheriff Gatcheco and his wife went to the house of Gonzales, harassed her, and asked her to
execute an affidavit of desistance regarding her complaint. Gonzales thereafter filed against
surprisingly filed a Motion to withdraw as counsel, one day before its
the Gatchecos criminal cases for trespass, grave threats, grave oral defamation, simple
scheduled hearing on April 28, 1999. (No copy was furnished to Jalandoni) coercion and unjust vexation.

LAWYER’S ACT: Respondent appeared for and in behalf of the SpsJalbuena and Delfin Contention of the complainant: Complainant alleges that respondent should be disbarred
while concurrently representing Jalandoni, et al. in Civil Case No. 97-9865. However, from the practice of law since respondent’s acceptance of the cases of the Gatchecos
despite being fully aware that the interest of Jalandoni [holding an equivalent of 82% violates the lawyer-client relationship between complainant and respondent’s law firm.
interest in PRCs shares of stocks] and the interest of PRC are one and the same,
Notwithstanding the pendency of the case where respondent’s law firm was still
notwithstanding the fact that Jalandoni was still his client in Civil Case No. 97-9862, representing Gonzales, respondent represented the Gatchecos in the cases filed by Gonzales
respondent opted to represent opposing clients at the same time. against the said spouses. She added that respondent prepared and notarized counter-
affidavits of the Gatcheco spouses. Respondent likewise acted as their counsel in the
LAWYER’S DEFENSE: criminal cases filed by Gonzales against them.

Defense of the respondent: Respondent alleges that he never appeared and represented
 Respondent argued that no prejudice was suffered by Mrs. Jalandoni because complainant since it was his brother, Atty. EdmarCabucana who appeared and represented
she was already represented by Atty. Lorenzo S. Alminaza from the first Gonzales in said case. He admitted that he is representing Sheriff Gatcheco and his wife in
hearing date.In fact, respondent contended, it was he who was not notified of the cases filed against them but claimed that his appearance is pro bono and that the spouses
the substitution of counsels. pleaded with him as no other counsel was willing to take their case. He entered his
 Complainant Humberto C. Lim, Jr. has not only violated the Rule on Civil appearance in good faith and opted to represent the spouses rather than leave them
defenseless. When the Gatchecos asked for his assistance, the spouses said that the cases
Procedure but he was/is NOT duly authorized by the Penta Resorts Corp.
filed against them by Gonzales were merely instigated by a high ranking official who
(PRC) nor byLumot A. Jalandoni to file this complaint against him. Neither wanted to get even with them for their refusal to testify in favor of the said official in
was Lim a proper party to file this complaint. This fact is an additional ground another case.
to have his case dismissed because Humberto C. Lim Jr. exceeded whatever
authority was granted to him as embodied in a resolution and the Special Power The civil case filed by Gonzales where respondent’s brother served as counsel is different
of Attorney allegedly granted to him by the complainants. and distinct from the criminal cases filed by complainant against the Gatcheco spouses,
thus, he did not violate any canon on legal ethics.
SC Ruling: SUSPENDED FOR 1 YEAR Ruling of the Court

The rule on conflict of interests covers not only cases in which confidential Respondent is fined the amount of Two Thousand Pesos with a stern warning that a
commission of the same or similar act in the future shall be dealt with more severely.
communications have been confided but also those in which no confidence has
been bestowed or will be used. It is well-settled that a lawyer is barred from representing conflicting interests except by
written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts.  Such prohibition is
 Another test of the inconsistency of interests is whether the acceptance of a new founded on principles of public policy and good taste as the nature of the lawyer-client
relations is one of trust and confidence of the highest degree. Lawyers are expected not only
relation will prevent an attorney from the full discharge of his duty of undivided to keep inviolate the client’s confidence, but also to avoid the appearance of treachery and
fidelity and loyalty to his client or invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double- double-dealing for only then can litigants be encouraged to entrust their secrets to their
dealing in the performance thereof, and also whether he will be called upon in lawyers, which is of paramount importance in the administration of justice.
his new relation to use against his first client any knowledge acquire in the One of the tests of inconsistency of interests is whether the acceptance of a new relation
previous employment. The first part of the rule refers to cases in which the would prevent the full discharge of the lawyer’s duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty to the
opposing parties are present clients either in the same action or in a totally client or invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double-dealing in the performance of that
duty.
unrelated case; the second part pertains to those in which the adverse party
against whom the attorney appears is his former client in a matter which is As expounded in the case of Quiambao vs Bamba,
related, directly or indirectly, to the present controversy.
The proscription against representation of conflicting interests applies to a
situation where the opposing parties are present clients in the same action or
The rule prohibits a lawyer from representing new clients whose interests in an unrelated action.  It is of no moment that the lawyer would not be called
oppose those of a former client in any manner, whether or not they are parties in upon to contend for one client that which the lawyer has to oppose for the
the same action or in totally unrelated cases. The cases here directly or indirectly other client, or that there would be no occasion to use the confidential
information acquired from one to the disadvantage of the other as the two
involved the parties connection to PRC, even if neither PRC nor Lumot A. actions are wholly unrelated.  It is enough that the opposing parties in one
Jalandoni was specifically named as party-litigant in some of the cases case, one of whom would lose the suit, are present clients and the nature or
mentioned. conditions of the lawyer’s respective retainers with each of them would affect
the performance of the duty of undivided fidelity to both clients.

An attorney owes to his client undivided allegiance. After being retained and The representation of opposing clients in said cases, though unrelated, constitutes conflict of
receiving the confidences of the client, he cannot, without the free and intelligent interests or, at the very least, invites suspicion of double-dealing which this Court cannot
consent of his client, act both for his client and for one whose interest is adverse allow.
to, or conflicting with that of his client in the same general matter. The
prohibition stands even if the adverse interest is very slight; neither is it Granting also that there really was no other lawyer who could handle the spouses case other
material that the intention and motive of the attorney may have been than him, still he should have observed the requirements laid down by the rules by
conferring with the prospective client to ascertain as soon as practicable whether the matter
honest.
would involve a conflict with another client then seek the written consent of all concerned
after a full disclosure of the facts.
The representation by a lawyer of conflicting interests, in the absence of the
written consent of all parties concerned after a full disclosure of the facts,
constitutes professional misconduct which subjects the lawyer to disciplinary
action.
PORMENTO V. PONTEVEDRA Hadjula vs Atty Madianda

The Case: Complaint against Atty. Elias A. Pontevedra with malpractice and Facts:
misconduct with prayer for disbarment
Complainant alleged that she and respondent used to be friends as they both
Facts: Respondent was the Pormento family’s legal counsel between 1964 and worked at the BFP (Bureau of Fire Protection). Complainant claimed that she
1994. The family’s relationship with the respondent extends beyond the mere approached respondent for some legal advice and in the course of their
lawyer-client relations. conversation, she disclosed personal secrets and produced copies of marriage
certificate, baptismal certificate etc. However, respondent refused to have her as
The rift between complainant and respondent began when the complainant’s client and instead directed her to a lawyer friend.
counterclaim in a civil case filed with the RTC of Bacolod City was dismissed. Complainant filed criminal and disciplinary actions against respondent – in
Respondent failed to inform complainant Pormento of the dismissal of his relation to the alleged demand for a cellular phone by the respondent to grant
counterclaim which resulted to the latter being deprived of his right to appeal. In complainant’s as the latter was part of BFP promotion board
order to recover his ownership over a parcel of land, Pormento was forced to COUNTER COMPLAINT was filed by the respondent based on the information
hire a new lawyer as Atty. Pontevedra refused to institute an action to recover she received from complainant when the latter tried to seek legal services from
the subject property. her. (Anti graft and corruption; Immoral conduct)

In a separate incident, In 1967, he bought a parcel of land located at Negros Issue:

Occidental.  The Deed of Declaration of Heirship and Sale of said land was
prepared and notarized by respondent.  Since there was another person who Whether the act of respondent in using the information she acquired from
claims ownership of the property, complainant alleges that he heeded complainant when the latter tried to seek legal advice from her was a violation of
respondent’s advice to build a small house on the property and to allow his the rule on confidentiality.
(complainant’s) nephew and his family to occupy the house in order for
complainant to establish his possession of the said property.  Subsequently, Ruling:
complainant’s nephew refused to vacate the property prompting the former to
file an ejectment case with the Municipal Trial Court of Escalante, Negros Yes!
Occidental.  Respondent acted as the counsel of complainant’s nephew
- The moment complainant approached the then receptive respondent
Held/Ruling: to seek legal advice, a veritable lawyer-client relationship evolved
between the two. Such relationship imposes upon the lawyer certain
Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides: restrictions circumscribed by the ethics of the profession. Among the
“A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent burdens of the relationship is that which enjoins the lawyer,
of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts.” respondent in this instance, to keep inviolate confidential information
acquired or revealed during legal consultations. The fact that one is,
at the end of the day, not inclined to handle the clients case is hardly
Jurisprudence instructs that there is a representation of conflicting interests if the of consequence. Of little moment, too, is the fact that no formal
acceptance of the new retainer will require the attorney to do anything which professional engagement follows the consultation. Nor will it make
will injuriously affect his first client in any matter in which he represents him any difference that no contract whatsoever was executed by the
and also whether he will be called upon in his new relation, to use against his parties to memorialize the relationship
first client any knowledge acquired through their connection. Another test to
determine if there is a representation of conflicting interests is whether the - What at bottom is before the Court is two former friends becoming
acceptance of a new relation will prevent an attorney from the full bitter enemies and filing charges and counter-charges against each
discharge of his duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty to his client or invite other using whatever convenient tools and data were readily
suspicion of unfaithfulness or double dealing in the performance thereof. available.
A lawyer is forbidden from representing a subsequent client against a former
client when the subject matter of the present controversy is related, directly or
indirectly, to the subject matter of the previous litigation in which he appeared
for the former client. Conversely, he may properly act as counsel for a new
client, with full disclosure to the latter, against a former client in a matter wholly
unrelated to that of the previous employment, there being in that instance no
conflict of interests. Where, however, the subject matter of the present suit
between the lawyer’s new client and his former client is in some way connected
with that of the former client’s action, the lawyer may have to contend for his
new client that which he previously opposed as counsel for the former client or
to use against the latter information confided to him as his counsel.

Privileged Communication – To Preserve the Secrets of a Client

RAMOS vs. IMBANG  o CBD Recommendations: Suspension from the practice of law
for three years and ordered him to immediately return to the
FACTS: complainant the amount of P5,000 which was substantiated by
 Nature of the Complaint: Disbarment or Suspension against Atty. Jose R.
the receipt.
Imbang for multiple violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

 1992, Ramos sought the assistance of Atty. Imbang in filing civil and criminal o Board of Governors:adopted and approved the findings of the
actions against the spouses Roque and Elenita Jovellanos. CBD, however, modified the CBD's recommendation with regard
to the restitution ofP5,000 by imposing interest at the legal rate,
o She gave Imbang P8,500 as attorney's fees but the latter issued a receipt reckoned from 1995 or, in case of Imbangs failure to return the
for P5,000 only. total amount, an additional suspension of six months.

o Ramos tried to attend the scheduled hearings of her cases against the
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Imbang should be disbarred.
Jovellanoses. Imbang never allowed her to enter the courtroom and
always told her to wait outside. He would then come out after several
hours to inform her that the hearing had been cancelled and
HELD: YES, as per SC’s decision.
rescheduled. This happened six times and for each “appearance” in court,
respondent charged herP350. (*Ito ‘yungsinasabing case ni Atty. RATIO DECIDENDI:  Lawyers are expected to conduct themselves with
Canlasnanagdedelayng case, lagging suspend  ) honesty and integrity. More specifically, lawyers in government service are
expected to be more conscientious of their actuations as they are subject to
o Ramos was shocked to learn that Imbang never filed any case against the public scrutiny. They are not only members of the bar but also public servants
Jovellanoses and that he was in fact employed in the Public Attorney's who owe utmost fidelity to public service.
Office (PAO). (*Utak ni Imbang!)

The SC supported this with three explanations:

 IMBANG’s CONTENTIONS:

1. Code of Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees

o Ramos knew that he was in the government service from the very
start. In fact, he first met the complainant when he was still a
 Section 7(b)(2) of the Code of Ethical Standards for Public Officials and
district attorney in the Citizen's Legal Assistance Office
Employees provides:
(predecessor of PAO) of Biñan, Laguna and was assigned as
o Section 7. Prohibited Acts and Transactions. -- In addition to acts
counsel for Ramos' daughter.
and omissions of public officials and employees now prescribed
in the Constitution and existing laws, the following constitute
o In 1992, Ramos requested him to help her file an action for
prohibited acts and transactions of any public official and
damages against the Jovellanoses. Because he was with the PAO
employee and are hereby declared unlawful:
and aware that Ramos was not an indigent, he declined. (*Alibi)
o (b) Outside employment and other activities related thereto,
public officials and employees during their incumbency shall
o Nevertheless, he advised Ramos to consult Atty. Tim Ungson, a
not:
relative who was a private practitioner. Atty. Ungson, however,
o (1) Engage in the private practice of profession unless authorized
did not accept the case as she was unable to come up with the
by the Constitution or law, provided that such practice will not
acceptance fee agreed upon.
conflict with their official function.
o Notwithstanding Atty. Ungson's refusal, Ramos allegedly
remained adamant. She insisted on suing the Jovellanoses. Afraid  In this instance, Imbang received P5,000 from the complainant and
that she “might spend” the cash on hand, Ramos asked Imbang to issued a receipt on July 15, 1992 while he was still connected with the
keep the P5,000 while she raised the balance of Atty. Ungson's PAO. Acceptance of money from a client establishes an attorney-client
acceptance fee.(*Utaktalaga! Galing mag-alibi!) relationship.

o On April 15, 1994, Imbang resigned from the PAO. A few 2. Revised Administrative Code
months later or in September 1994, Ramos again asked Imbang  Section 14(3), Chapter 5, Title III, Book V of the Revised
to assist her in suing the Jovellanoses.  Inasmuch as he was now Administrative Code provides:
a private practitioner, Imbang agreed to prepare the complaint. o The PAO shall be the principal law office of the Government in
However, he was unable to finalize it as he lost contact with extending free legal assistance to indigent persons in criminal,
Ramos. civil, labor, administrative and other quasi-judicial cases.
 As a PAO lawyer, Imbang should not have accepted attorney's fees from
 IBP findings (CBD): the complainant as this was inconsistent with the office's mission.

o The CBD concluded that respondent violated the following 3. Code of Professional Responsibility
provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility:  Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides:
o CANON 1. — A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE
 Rule 1.01. A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. PROMOTE RESPECT FOR THE LAW AND LEGAL
 Rule 16.01. A lawyer shall account for all money or PROCESSES.
property collected or received for or from a client.  Every lawyer is obligated to uphold the law. This undertaking includes
 Rule 18.01. A lawyer should not undertake a legal the observance of the above-mentioned prohibitions blatantly violated
service which he knows or should know that he is not by Imbang when he accepted the complainant's cases and received
qualified to render. However, he may render such attorney's fees in consideration of his legal services.
service if, with the consent of his client, he can obtain  Consequently, Imbang's acceptance of the cases was also a breach of
as collaborating counsel a lawyer who is competent on Rule 18.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility because the
the matter. prohibition on the private practice of profession disqualified him from
acting as Ramos' counsel. 
 Yu vs. Bondal
Rollon vs Naraval
Facts:
Facts: Atty. Renato Lazaro Bondal was charged by Jayne Y. Yu for gross negligence
Complainant went to the respondent office to seek his assistance in a case filed
and violation of Canon 16 and Rule 16.03 of the Code of Professional
before the complainant in the MTC for Collection of Sum of Money Responsibility because of his alleged failure to attend to the five cases Yu
Complainant then delivered all necessary documents to the respondent including
referred to him and to return, despite demand, the amount of P51,716.54 she has
the payment of 8,000 pesos as filing fees and service fees. paid him.
After several follow-ups to inquire as to the status of the case, respondent
informed petitioner that the case had yet to be filed as he was very busy. On 30 March 2000, Yu engaged in the services of Bondal as her counsel in five
Complainant then opted to withdraw the amount paid to Atty Naraval because of
(5) cases and in the Retainer Agreement of the same date, complainant agreed to
the latter’s failure to comply with their agreement. Despite the demand however, pay respondent the amount of P200,000.00 as Acceptance Fee for the said cases,
respondent failed to return the money to the complainant.
with an Appearance Fee of P1,500.00 pesos per hearing; and in the event that
damages are recovered, she would pay respondent 10% thereof as success fee.
Issue:
Complainant later issued two checks, dated 20 February 2001 and 5 April 2001
Whether the act committed by respondent is a violation of CPR in the amount of P30,000.00 and P21,716.54, respectively. Despite receipt of
above-said amounts, respondent failed to attend on the said cases due to his
Ruling: negligence.
Rule 15.05 of the Code of Professional Responsibility requires that lawyers give
their candid and best opinion to their clients on the merit or lack of merit of the On 14 June 2001, complainant demanded from respondent for the return of all
case, neither overstating nor understating their evaluation thereof. Knowing
the records she had entrusted him bearing on the subject cases. Through her
whether a case would have some prospect of success is not only a function, but counsel, she sent a letter in which she demands for the return of the records of
also an obligation on the part of lawyers. If they find that their clients cause is
the cases. Respondent returned only two of the five records. On 8 August 2001,
defenseless, then it is their bounden duty to advise the latter to acquiesce and she demanded the return of the rest of the files and in the same letter; she also
submit, rather than to traverse the incontrovertible. The failure of respondent to
demanded the refund of the amounts covered by the two checks she issued.
fulfill this basic undertaking constitutes a violation of his duty to observe Respondent failed and continues to refuse to comply with complainant’s valid
candor, fairness and loyalty in all his dealings and transactions with his clients
demands. Hence, this petition.
Respondent should have given her a candid, honest opinion on the merits and the
status of the case. Apparently, the civil suit between Rosita Julaton and
Issue:
complainant had been decided against the latter. In fact, the judgment had long Whether Atty. Bondal violated Canon 16 and Rule 16.03 of the Code of
become final and executory. But he withheld such vital information from
Professional Responsibilty.
complainant. Instead, he demanded P8 000 as filing and service fee and thereby
gave her hope that her case would be acted upon.
Held:
No. Petition dismissed.

Ruling:
The Court held that the complainant failed to establish the guilt of respondent by
clear, convincing and satisfactory proof. In the present case, the fact that
complainant was dissatisfied with the outcome of the four cases does not render
void the retainer agreement for respondent appears to have represented the
interest of complainant. Moreover, litigants need to be reminded that lawyers are
not demigods or magicians who can always win their cases for their clients no
matter the utter lack of merit of the same or how passionate the litigants may
feel about their cause.

However, since respondent had been advised by complainant through her

counsel that she intended to terminate his services, he was obliged, under Rule
22.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, to immediately turn over all
papers and property which complainant entrusted to his successor.