I. ABRAGAN vs. RODRIGUEZ Lawyers violate their oath of office when they represent conflicting interests.

They taint not only their own professional practice, but the entire legal profession itself. FACTS: Petitioners hired the respondent lawyer in a case for forcibly entry. The case was won. A writ of execution was issued in favor of petitioners. Respondent however, surreptitiously sell some property rights (land) to other persons without the consent of the petitioners herein, they decided to sever their client-lawyer relationship. In the meantime, an indirect contempt case was filed by petitioners against Sheriff Fernando Loncion, with respondent as counsel for Loncion. HELD: Rule 15.03 CPR- A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts. WHEREFORE, Maximo G. Rodriguez is found guilty of violating Rule 15.03 of Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and is hereby SUSPENDED for six (6) months from the practice of law, effective upon his receipt of this Decision. He is warned that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.

Facts: Sometime in 1986, complainants hired the services of the

respondent to represent in a case before the MTCC of Cagayan de Oro City. The case was won by the complainants. Subsequently, when thelawyer allegedly surreptitiously dealt with the subject property with other persons, the petitioner severed the lawyer client relationship.

On August 1991, complainants filed a case of indirect contempt against Sheriff Fernando Loncion et al. Much to their surprise, respondent represented the sheriff. Since the counsel employed by the complainants was a former student of respondent, said counsel, egged by the suggestions of respondent withdrew the case without the petitioners consent. That as a result of such withdrawal, subsequent events occurred to the prejudice of the complainants.

Issue:

Whether or not Atty. Rodriguez should be disbarred.

Held: Yes. In the present case, respondent clearly violated Rule

15.03 of Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which provides that a lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned given after full disclosure of the facts.
Floran vs. Ediza
Attorney; dishonesty. It is clear from the records that respondent Atty. Ediza deceived the Spouses Floran when he asked them to unknowingly sign a deed of sale transferring a

portion of their land to him. Respondent also made it appear that the original owner of the land conveyed her rights therto to respondent and not to the Spouses Floran. When the sale of the Spouses Florans land pushed through, respondent received half of the proceeds given by the buyer and falsely misled the Spouses Floran into thinking that he will register the remaining portion of the land. Lamentably, Atty. Ediza played on the navet of the Spouses Floran to deprive them of their valued property. This is an unsavory behavior from a member of the legal profession. Aside from giving adequate attention, care and time to his clients case, a lawyer is also expected to be truthful, fair and honest in protecting his clients rights. Once a lawyer fails in this duty, he is not true to his oath as a lawyer. Respondent lawyer violated Rule 1.01 of Canon 1, Canon 15, and Rule 18.03 of Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility for which he is suspended from the practice of law for six months. Nemesio Floran and Caridad Floran v. Atty. Roy Prule Ediza. A.C. No. 5325. October 19, 2011.