Complainant: Simon D. Paz Respondent: Atty. Pepito A. Sanchez Canon 15 representing conflicting interests Facts:
Paz filed a disbarment complaint against Sanchez for representing
conflicting interests and violating the lawyers oath In 1995, Paz and his partners engaged the services of Sanchez to: o assist in the purchase and documentation of several parcels of land from tenant-farmers in Pampanga o defend Pazs claim on the above properties against one George Lizares claim Paz claimed he is guilty of conflict of interest because of the following: o In 2000, allegedly after Sanchezs contract with Paz ended, Sanchez filed a complaint before the Dept of Agrarian Reform Board (DARAB) for one Isidro Dizon to annul a TCT in the name of Paz and his partners when in fact, Dizons property was among those he purchased with Sanchezs assistance o (not that important) In 2003, Sanchez, despite knowledge of Pazs pending petition for review of judgment in the DARAB case, filed a civil case in the RTC against Paz for annulment of TCT In his comment, Sanchez stated: o that he had been representing the tenant-farmers, including Dizon in their DARAB cases since 1978.
That Paz and his partners indeed expressed interest in acquiring
Dizons property and that he represented them because they did not get a lawyer of their own and allowed him to represent them too IBP found respondent guilty of violating the prohibition against representing conflicting interests and recommended 1yr suspension o
Issue: W/N Sanchez is guilty of representing conflicting interests?
Held: YES. Rule 15.03 of CPR: "a lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned given after full disclosure of the facts." Lawyers are deemed to represent conflicting interests when, in behalf of one client, it is their duty to contend for that which duty to another client requires them to oppose. The proscription against representation of conflicting interest applies to a situation where the opposing parties are present clients in the same action or in an unrelated action. Sanchez admitted that when he filed the DARAB case for Dizon against Paz, both were clients of Sanchez at that time. He did not specifically deny that he represented conflicting interests. He merely attempted to justify his acts by stating that he felt it was his duty and responsibility to file the case. However, good faith and honest intentions do not excuse the violation of this prohibition. He should have inhibited himself from representing Dizon against Paz in the DARAB and RTC case WHEREFORE, SUSPENDED FOR 1 YEAR WITH WARNING.