Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC

A.C. No. 3701 March 28, 1995

PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, complainant,
vs.
ATTY. TELESFORO S. CEDO, respondent.
RESOLUTION

BIDIN, J.:
In a verified letter-complaint dated August 15, 1991, complainant Philippine National Bank charged
respondent Atty. Telesforo S. Cedo, former Asst. Vice-President of the Asset Management Group of
complainant bank with violation of Canon 6, Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, thus:
A lawyer shall not, after leaving government service, accept engagement or employment
in connection with any matter in which he had intervened while in said service.
by appearing as counsel for individuals who had transactions with complainant bank in which respondent
during his employment with aforesaid bank, had intervened.
Complainant averred that while respondent was still in its employ, he participated in arranging the sale of
steel sheets (denominated as Lots 54-M and 55-M) in favor of Milagros Ong Siy for P200,000. He even
"noted" the gate passes issued by his subordinate, Mr. Emmanuel Elefan, in favor of Mrs. Ong Siy
authorizing the pull-out of the steel sheets from the DMC Man Division Compound. When a civil action
arose out of this transaction between Mrs. Ong Siy and complainant bank before the Regional Trial Court
of Makati, Branch 146, respondent who had since left the employ of complainant bank, appeared as one
of the counsels of Mrs. Ong Siy.
Similarly, when the same transaction became the subject of an administrative case filed by complainant
bank against his former subordinate Emmanuel Elefan, for grave misconduct and dishonesty, respondent
appeared as counsel for Elefan only to be later disqualified by the Civil Service Commission.
Moreover, while respondent was still the Asst. Vice President of complainants Asset Management Group,
he intervened in the handling of the loan account of the spouses Ponciano and Eufemia Almeda with
complainant bank by writing demand letters to the couple. When a civil action ensued between
complainant bank and the Almeda spouses as a result of this loan account, the latter were represented by
the law firm "Cedo, Ferrer, Maynigo & Associates" of which respondent is one of the Senior Partners.

In his Comment on the complaint, respondent admitted that he appeared as counsel for Mrs. Ong Siy but
only with respect to the execution pending appeal of the RTC decision. He alleged that he did not
participate in the litigation of the case before the trial court. With respect to the case of the Almeda
spouses, respondent alleged that he never appeared as counsel for them. He contended that while the
law firm "Cedo Ferrer, Maynigo & Associates" is designated as counsel of record, the case is actually
handled only by Atty. Pedro Ferrer. Respondent averred that he did not enter into a general partnership
with Atty. Pedro Ferrer nor with the other lawyers named therein. They are only using the aforesaid name
to designate a law firm maintained by lawyers, who although not partners, maintain one office as well as
one clerical and supporting staff. Each one of them handles their own cases independently and
individually receives the revenues therefrom which are not shared among them.
In the resolution of this Court dated January 27, 1992, this case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP), for investigation, report and recommendation.
During the investigation conducted by the IBP, it was discovered that respondent was previously fined by
this Court in the amount of P1,000.00 in connection with G.R. No. 94456 entitled "Milagros Ong Siy vs.
Hon. Salvador Tensuan, et al." for forum shopping, where respondent appeared as counsel for petitioner
Milagros Ong Siy "through the law firm of Cedo Ferrer Maynigo and Associates."
The IBP further found that the charges herein against respondent were fully substantiated. Respondent's
averment that the law firm handling the case of the Almeda spouses is not a partnership deserves scant
consideration in the light of the attestation of complainant's counsel, Atty. Pedro Singson, that in one of
the hearings of the Almeda spouses' case, respondent attended the same with his partner Atty. Ferrer,
and although he did not enter his appearance, he was practically dictating to Atty. Ferrer what to say and
argue before the court. Furthermore, during the hearing of the application for a writ of injunction in the
same case, respondent impliedly admitted being the partner of Atty. Ferrer, when it was made of record
that respondent was working in the same office as Atty. Ferrer.
Moreover, the IBP noted that assuming the alleged set-up of the firm is true, it is in itself a violation of the
Code of Professional Responsibility (Rule 15.02) since the clients secrets and confidential records and
information are exposed to the other lawyers and staff members at all times.
From the foregoing, the IBP found a deliberate intent on the part of respondent to devise ways and means
to attract as clients former borrowers of complainant bank since he was in the best position to see the
legal weaknesses of his former employer, a convincing factor for the said clients to seek his professional
service. In sum, the IBP saw a deliberate sacrifice by respondent of his ethics in consideration of the
money he expected to earn.
The IBP thus recommended the suspension of respondent from the practice of law for 3 years.
The records show that after the Board of Governors of the IBP had, on October 4, 1994, submitted to this
Court its Report and recommendation in this case, respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration dated
October 25, 1994 of the recommendation contained in the said Report with the IBP Board of Governors.
On December 12, 1994, respondent also filed another "Motion to Set Hearing" before this Court, the
aforesaid Motion for Reconsideration. In resolving this case, the Court took into consideration the
aforesaid pleadings.

In addition to the findings of the IBP, this Court finds this occasion appropriate to emphasize the
paramount importance of avoiding the representation of conflicting interests. In the similar case of Pasay
Law and Conscience Union, Inc. vs. Paz, (95 SCRA 24 [1980]) where a former Legal Officer and Legal
Prosecutor of PARGO who participated in the investigation of the Anti-Graft case against Mayor Pablo
Cuneta later on acted as counsel for the said Mayor in the same anti-graft case, this Court,
citing Nombrado vs. Hernandez (26 SCRA 13 119681) ruled:
The Solicitor General is of the opinion, and we find no reason to disagree with him, that
even if respondent did not use against his client any information or evidence acquired by
him as counsel it cannot be denied that he did become privy to information regarding the
ownership of the parcel of land which was later litigated in the forcible entry case, for it
was the dispute over the land that triggered the mauling incident which gave rise to the
criminal action for physical injuries. This Court's remarks in Hilado vs. David, 84 Phil. 571,
are apropos:
"Communications between attorney and client are, in a great number of litigations, a
complicated affair, consisting of entangled relevant and irrelevant, secret and well-known
facts. In the complexity of what is said in the course of dealings between an attorney and
client, inquiry of the nature suggested would lead to the revelation, in advance of the trial,
of other matters that might only further prejudice the complainant's cause."
Whatever may be said as to whether or not respondent utilized against his former client
information given to him in a professional capacity, the mere fact of their previous
relationship should have precluded him from appearing as counsel for the other side in
the forcible entry case. In the case ofHilado vs. David, supra, this Tribunal further said:
Hence the necessity of setting the existence of the bare relationship of attorney and client
as the yardstick for testing incompatibility of interests. This stern rule is designed not
alone to prevent the dishonest practitioner from fraudulent conduct, but as well to protect
the honest lawyer from unfounded suspicion of unprofessional practice. . . . It is founded
on principles of public policy, of good taste. As has been said in another case, the
question is not necessarily one of the rights of the parties, but as to whether the attorney
has adhered to proper professional standard. With these thoughts in mind, it behooves
attorney, like Caesar's wife, not only to keep inviolate the client's confidence, but also to
avoid the appearance of treachery and double dealing. Only thus can litigants. be
encouraged to entrust their secrets to their attorneys which is of paramount importance in
the administration of justice.
The foregoing disquisition on conflicting interest applies with equal force and effect to respondent in the
case at bar. Having been an executive of complainant bank, respondent now seeks to litigate as counsel
for the opposite side, a case against his former employer involving a transaction which he formerly
handled while still an employee of complainant, in violation of Canon 6 of the Canons of Professional
Ethics on adverse influence and conflicting interests, to wit:
It is unprofessional to represent conflicting interests, except by express conflicting
consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts. Within the meaning of
this canon, a lawyer represents conflicting interest when, in behalf on one client, it is his
duty to contend for that which duty to another client requires him to oppose.

ACCORDINGLY, this Court resolves to SUSPEND respondent ATTY. TELESFORO S. CEDO from the
practice of law for THREE (3) YEARS, effective immediately.
Let copies of this resolution be furnished the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and all courts in Metro
Manila.
SO ORDERED.
Narvasa, C.J., Feliciano, Padilla, Regalado, Davide, Romero, Bellosillo, Melo, Quiason, Puno, Vitug,
Kapunan, Mendoza and Francisco, JJ., concur.

FIRST DIVISION
[A.C. No. 6708. August 25, 2005.]
(CBD Case No. 01-874)
FELICITAS S. QUIAMBAO, complainant, vs. ATTY. NESTOR A. BAMBA, respondent.
Ang & Associates for complainant.
RESOLUTION
DAVIDE, JR., C.J p:
We are aware of the hapless fact that there are not enough lawyers to serve an exploding
population. This unfortunate state of affairs, however, will not seize this Court from exercising its
disciplinary power over lawyers culpable of serious indiscretions. The incidence of public force must be
deployed to bear upon the community to eventually forge a legal profession that provides quality, ethical,
accessible, and cost-effective legal service to our people and whose members are willing and able to
answer the call to public service.
In this administrative case for disbarment, complainant Felicitas S. Quiambao charges
respondent Atty. Nestor A. Bamba with violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility for
representing conflicting interests when the latter filed a case against her while he was at that time
representing her in another case, and for committing other acts of disloyalty and double-dealing.

From June 2000 to January 2001, the complainant was the president and managing director of
Allied Investigation Bureau, Inc. (AIB), a family-owned corporation engaged in providing security and
investigation services. She avers that she procured the legal services of the respondent not only for the
corporate affairs of AIB but also for her personal case. Particularly, the respondent acted as her counsel
of record in an ejectment case against Spouses Santiago and Florita Torroba filed by her on 29 December
2000 before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Paraaque City, which was docketed as Civil Case
No. 11928. She paid attorney's fees for respondent's legal services in that case. 1 About six months after
she resigned as AIB president, or on 14 June 2001, the respondent filed on behalf of AIB a complaint for
replevin and damages against her before the MeTC of Quezon City for the purpose of recovering from her
the car of AIB assigned to her as a service vehicle. This he did without withdrawing as counsel of record
in the ejectment case, which was then still pending. 2
Apart from the foregoing litigation matter, the complainant, in her Position Paper, charges the
respondent with acts of disloyalty and double-dealing. She avers that the respondent proposed to her that
she organize her own security agency and that he would assist her in its organization, causing her to
resign as president of AIB. The respondent indeed assisted her in December 2000 in the formation of
another security agency, Quiambao Risk Management Specialists, Inc., (QRMSI), which was later
registered under complainant's name, with the respondent as a "silent partner" represented by his
associate Atty. Gerardo P. Hernandez. The respondent was paid attorney's fees for his legal services in
organizing and incorporating QRMSI. He also planned to "steal" or "pirate" some of the more important
clients of AIB. While serving as legal counsel for AIB and a "silent partner" of QRMSI, he convinced
complainant's brother Leodegario Quiambao to organize another security agency, San Esteban Security
Services, Inc. (SESSI) where he (the respondent) served as its incorporator, director, and president. The
respondent and Leodegario then illegally diverted the funds of AIB to fund the incorporation of SESSI, and
likewise planned to eventually close down the operations of AIB and transfer the business to SESSI. 3
For his part, the respondent admits that he represented the complainant in the aforementioned
ejectment case and later represented AIB in the replevin case against her. He, however, denies that he
was the "personal lawyer" of the complainant, and avers that he was made to believe that it was part of
his function as counsel for AIB to handle even the "personal cases" of its officers. Even assuming that the
complainant confided to him privileged information about her legal interests, the ejectment case and the
replevin case are unrelated cases involving different issues and parties and, therefore, the privileged
information which might have been gathered from one case would have no use in the other. At any rate, it

was the complainant herself who insisted that he stay as her counsel despite the perceived differences
among her, her brother, and AIB over the motor vehicle subject of the replevin case. The complainant
even asked him to assist her in her monetary claims against AIB. 4
The respondent also denies the charge raised by the complainant in her position paper that he
agreed to be a "silent partner" of QRMSI through his nominee, Atty. Gerardo P. Hernandez, who was his
former law partner. He declined complainant's offer to assume that role and suggested Atty. Hernandez in
his place; thus, 375 shares of stock were registered in Atty. Hernandez's name as consideration of his
(Atty. Hernandez's) legal services as corporate secretary and legal counsel of QRMSI. The respondent
also denies that he convinced complainant's brother Leodegario to organize another security agency and
that the funds of AIB were unlawfully diverted to SESSI. It was to complement the business of AIB, which
was then in danger of collapse, that SESSI was established. Leodegario's wife and her son have the
effective control over SESSI. Respondent's subscribed shareholdings in SESSI comprise only 800 shares
out of 12,500 subscribed shares. He serves AIB and SESSI in different capacities: as legal counsel of the
former and as president of the latter. 5
In his Report and Recommendation 6 dated 31 August 2004, the investigating commissioner of
the IBP found the respondent guilty of representing conflicting interests based on the following undisputed
facts: first, the respondent was still complainant's counsel of record in the ejectment case when he filed,
as legal counsel of AIB, the replevin case against her; and second, the respondent was still the legal
counsel of AIB when he advised the complainant on the incorporation of another security agency, QRMSI,
and recommended his former law partner, Atty. Gerardo Hernandez, to be its corporate secretary and
legal counsel and also when he conferred with Leodegario to organize another security agency, SESSI,
where the respondent became an incorporator, stockholder, and president. Thus, the investigating
commissioner recommended that the respondent be suspended from the practice of law for one
year. ADEaHT
The IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the investigating commissioner's report
and recommendation, but reduced the penalty from one year to a stern reprimand. 7
The issue in this case is whether the respondent is guilty of misconduct for representing
conflicting interests in contravention of the basic tenets of the legal profession.

Rule 15.03, Canon 5 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides: "A lawyer shall not
represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the
facts." This prohibition is founded on principles of public policy and good taste. 8 In 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. The nature of that relationship is, therefore, one of trust and
confidence of the highest degree. 9 It behooves lawyers not only to keep inviolate the client's confidence,
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 of paramount importance in the
administration of justice. 10
In broad terms, 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. 11 Developments in jurisprudence have particularized various tests to determine whether a
lawyer's conduct lies within this proscription. One test is whether a lawyer is duty-bound to fight for an
issue or claim in behalf of one client and, at the same time, to oppose that claim for the other
client. 12 Thus, if a lawyer's argument for one client has to be opposed by that same lawyer in arguing for
the other client, there is a violation of the rule.
Another test of inconsistency of interests is whether the acceptance of a new relation would
prevent the full discharge of the lawyer's duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty to the client or invite
suspicion of unfaithfulness or double-dealing in the performance of that duty. 13 Still another test is
whether the lawyer would be called upon in the new relation to use against a former client any confidential
information acquired through their connection or previous employment. 14
The proscription against representation of conflicting interests applies to a situation where the
opposing parties are present clients in the same action or in an unrelated action. It is of no moment that
the lawyer would not be called upon to contend for one client that which the lawyer has to oppose for the
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 actions are wholly unrelated. It is enough that the opposing
parties in one case, one of whom would lose the suit, are present clients and the nature or conditions of
the lawyer's respective retainers with each of them would affect the performance of the duty of undivided
fidelity to both clients. 15

In this case, it is undisputed that at the time the respondent filed the replevin case on behalf of
AIB he was still the counsel of record of the complainant in the pending ejectment case. We do not
sustain respondent's theory that since the ejectment case and the replevin case are unrelated cases
fraught with different issues, parties, and subject matters, the prohibition is inapplicable. His
representation of opposing clients in both cases, though unrelated, obviously constitutes conflict of
interest or, at the least, invites suspicion of double-dealing. While the respondent may assert that the
complainant expressly consented to his continued representation in the ejectment case, the respondent
failed to show that he fully disclosed the facts to both his clients and he failed to present any written
consent of the complainant and AIB as required under Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.

Neither can we accept respondent's plea that he was duty-bound to handle all the cases
referred to him by AIB, including the personal cases of its officers which had no connection to its
corporate affairs. That the representation of conflicting interest is in good faith and with honest intention
on the part of the lawyer does not make the prohibition inoperative. 16 Moreover, lawyers are not obliged
to act either as an adviser or advocate for every person who may wish to become their client.They have
the right to decline such employment, subject, however, to Canon 14 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. 17 Although there are instances where lawyers cannot decline representation, 18 they
cannot be made to labor under conflict of interest between a present client and a prospective one. 19
Additionally, in his position paper, the respondent alleges that when the complainant invited the
respondent to join QRMSI, he "vehemently refused to join them due to his perception of conflicting
interest as he was then (and still is at present) the Legal Counsel" of AIB, which is also a security
agency. 20 To bolster his allegation, he invoked the affidavits of complainant's witnesses which contained
statements of his apprehension of conflict of interest should he join QRMSI. 21
Surprisingly, despite his apprehension or awareness of a possible conflict of interest should he
join QRMSI, the respondent later allowed himself to become an incorporator, stockholder, and president
of SESSI, which is also a security agency. He justified his act by claiming that while both AIB and SESSI
are engaged in security agency business, he is serving in different capacities. As the in-house legal
counsel of AIB, he "serves its legal interest the parameter of which evolves around legal matters" such as

protecting the legal rights and interest of the corporation; conducting an investigation or a hearing on
violations of company rules and regulations of their office employees and security guards; sending
demand letters in collection cases; and representing the corporation in any litigation for or against it. And
as president of SESSI, he serves the operational aspects of the business such as "how does it operate[],
how much do they price their services, what kind or how do they train[] their security guards, how they
solicit clients." Thus, conflict of interest is far-fetched. Moreover, the respondent argues that the
complainant, not being a stockholder of AIB and SESSI, has no right to question his alleged conflict of
interest in serving the two security agencies. 22
While the complainant lacks personality to question the alleged conflict of interests on the part
of the respondent in serving both security agencies, we cannot just turn a blind eye to respondent's act. It
must be noted that the proscription against representation of conflicting interests finds application where
the conflicting interests arise with respect to the same general matter however slight the adverse interest
may be. It applies even if the conflict pertains to the lawyer's private activity or in the performance of a
function in a non-professional capacity. 23 In the process of determining whether there is a conflict of
interest, an important criterion is probability, not certainty, of conflict.
Since the respondent has financial or pecuniary interest in SESSI, which is engaged in a
business competing with his client's, and, more importantly, he occupies the highest position in SESSI,
one cannot help entertaining a doubt on his loyalty to his client AIB. This kind of situation passes the
second test of conflict of interest, which is whether the acceptance of a new relationship would prevent
the full discharge of the lawyer's duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty to the client or invite suspicion of
unfaithfulness or double-dealing in the performance of that duty. The close relationship of the majority
stockholders of both companies does not negate the conflict of interest. Neither does his protestation that
his shareholding in SESSI is "a mere pebble among the sands."
In view of all of the foregoing, we find the respondent guilty of serious misconduct for
representing conflicting interests.
Furthermore, it must be noted that Republic Act No. 5487, otherwise known as the Private
Security Agency Law, prohibits a person from organizing or having an interest in more than one security
agency. From respondent's position paper, it can be culled that Leodegario Quiambao is the president
and managing director of AIB, holding 60% of the outstanding shares; while his four other siblings who

are permanent residents in the United States own the remaining 40%. 24 This prohibition notwithstanding,
the respondent organized SESSI, with Leodegario's wife and son as majority stockholders holding about
70% of the outstanding shares and with him (the respondent), as well as the rest of the stockholders,
holding minimal shares. 25 In doing so, the respondent virtually allowed Leodegario and the latter's wife
to violate or circumvent the law by having an interest in more than one security agency. It must be noted
that in the affidavit 26 of Leodegario's wife, she mentioned of their conjugal property. In the absence of
evidence to the contrary, the property relation of Leodegario and his wife can be presumed to be that of
conjugal partnership of gains; hence, the majority shares in AIB and SESSI are the conjugal property of
Leodegario and his wife, thereby placing themselves in possession of an interest in more than one
security agency in contravention of R.A. No. 5487. Thus, in organizing SESSI, the respondent
violated Rule 1.02, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which mandates lawyers to
promote respect for the law and refrain from counseling or abetting activities aimed at defiance of the law.
As to the recommendation that the penalty be reduced from a suspension of one year to a stern
warning, we find the same to be without basis. We are disturbed by the reduction made by the IBP Board
of Governors of the penalty recommended by the investigating commissioner without clearly and distinctly
stating the facts and reasons on which that reduction is based.
Section 12(a), Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court reads in part as follows:
SEC. 12. Review and decision by the Board of Governors.
(a) Every case heard by an investigator shall be reviewed by the IBP Board of
Governors upon the record and evidence transmitted to it by the Investigator with his
report. The decision of the Board upon such review shall be in writing and shall clearly
and distinctly state the facts and the reasons on which it is based.
We may consider the resolution of the IBP Board of Governors as a memorandum decision
adopting by reference the report of the investigating commissioner. However, we look with disfavor the
change in the recommended penalty without any explanation therefor. Again, we remind the IBP Board of
Governors of the importance of the requirement to announce in plain terms its legal reasoning, since the
requirement that its decision in disciplinary proceedings must state the facts and the reasons on which its

decision is based is akin to what is required of the decisions of courts of record. 27 The reasons for
handing down a penalty occupy no lesser station than any other portion of the ratio.
In similar cases where the respondent was found guilty of representing conflicting interests a
penalty ranging from one to three years' suspension was imposed.28 In this case, we find that a
suspension from the practice of law for one year is warranted.
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Nestor A. Bamba is hereby held GUILTY of violation of Rule
15.03 of Canon 15 and Rule 1.02 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He is
SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of ONE (1) YEAR effective from receipt of this
Resolution, with a warning that a similar infraction in the future shall be dealt with more severely.
Let copies of this Resolution be furnished to the Office of the Bar Confidant and the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines. cADaIH
SO ORDERED.
Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Carpio and Azcuna, JJ., concur.
||| (Quiambao v. Bamba, A.C. No. 6708, [August 25, 2005], 505 PHIL 126-140)

THIRD DIVISION

[A.C. No. 9537. June 10, 2013.]

[Formerly CBD Case No. 09-2489]

DR. TERESITA LEE, complainant, vs. ATTY. AMADOR L. SIMANDO, respondent.

DECISION

PERALTA, J p:

Before us is a Petition for Disbarment 1 dated July 21, 2009 filed by Dr. Teresita Lee (Dr. Lee) against
respondent Atty. Amador L. Simando (Atty. Simando) before the Integrated Bar of the PhilippinesCommission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD), docketed as CBD Case No. 09-2489, now A.C. No. 9537, for
violation of the Code of Judicial Ethics of Lawyers.
The facts of the case, as culled from the records, are as follows:
Atty. Simando was the retained counsel of complainant Dr. Lee from November 2004 until January 8,
2008, with a monthly retainer fee of Three Thousand Pesos (Php3,000.00). 2
Sometime during the above-mentioned period, Atty. Simando went to see Dr. Lee and asked if the latter
could help a certain Felicito M. Mejorado (Mejorado) for his needed funds. He claimed that Mejorado was
then awaiting the release of his claim for informer's reward from the Bureau of Customs. Because
Dr. Lee did not know Mejorado personally and she claimed to be not in the business of lending money,
the former initially refused to lend money. But Atty. Simando allegedly persisted and assured her that
Mejorado will pay his obligation and will issue postdated checks and sign promissory notes. He allegedly
even offered to be the co-maker of Mejorado and assured her that Mejorado's obligation will be paid when
due. Atty. Simando was quoted saying: "Ipapahamak ba kita, kliyente kita"; "Sigurado ito, kung gusto mo,
gagarantiyahan ko pa ito, at pipirma din ako"; "Isang buwan lang, at hindi hihigit sa dalawang buwan ito,
bayad ka na." 3 AIHDcC
Due to Atty. Simando's persistence, his daily calls and frequent visits to convince Dr. Lee, the latter gave
in to her lawyer's demands, and finally agreed to give Mejorado sizeable amounts of money. Respondent
acted as co-maker with Mejorado in various cash loans, to wit: 4
Date:
November 11, 2006
November 24, 2006
November 27, 2006
December 7, 2006
December 13, 2006
Total:

Amount
Php400,000.00
200,000.00
400,000.00
200,000.00
200,000.00

Php1,400,000.00
=============

When the said obligation became due, despite Dr. Lee's repeated demands, Mejorado failed and refused
to comply with his obligation. Since Atty. Simando was still her lawyer then, Dr. Lee instructed him to
initiate legal action against Mejorado. Atty. Simando said he would get in touch with Mejorado and ask

him to pay his obligation without having to resort to legal action. However, even after several months,
Mejorado still failed to pay Dr. Lee, so she again asked Atty. Simando why no payment has been made
yet. Dr. Lee then reminded Atty. Simando that he was supposed to be the co-maker of the obligation of
Mejorado, to which he replied: "Di kasuhan din ninyo ako!" 5
Despite complainant's repeated requests, respondent ignored her and failed to bring legal actions against
Mejorado. Thus, in January 2008, complainant was forced to terminate her contract with Atty. Simando.
Subsequently, complainant's new lawyer, Atty. Gilbert Morandarte, sent a demand letter dated June 13,
2008 to Atty. Simando in his capacity as the co-maker of some of the loans of Mejorado.
In his Letter dated June 30, 2008, respondent denied his liability as a co-maker and claimed that novation
had occurred because complainant had allegedly given additional loans to Mejorado without his
knowledge. 6
Dr. Lee then accused Atty. Simando of violating the trust and confidence which she gave upon him as her
lawyer, and even took advantage of their professional relationship in order to get a loan for his client.
Worse, when the said obligation became due, respondent was unwilling to help her to favor Mejorado.
Thus, the instant petition for disbarment against Atty. Simando. ADECcI
On August 12, 2009, the IBP-CBD ordered respondent to submit his Answer on the complaint against
him. 7
In his Answer 8 dated September 17, 2009, Atty. Simando claimed that complainant, who is engaged in
lending money at a high interest rate, was the one who initiated the financial transaction between her and
Mejorado. He narrated that complainant asked him if it is true that Mejorado is his client as she found out
that Mejorado has a pending claim for informer's reward with the Bureau of Customs. When he affirmed
that Mejorado is his client, complainant signified that she is willing to give money for Mejorado's financial
needs while awaiting for the release of the informer's reward. Eventually, parties agreed that Mejorado will
pay double the amount and that payment shall be made upon receipt by Mejorado of the payment of his
claim for informer's reward. 9
Meanwhile, Atty. Simando stressed that Dr. Lee gave Mejorado a total of Php700,000.00 as an
investment but he signed as co-maker in all the receipts showing double the amount or
Php1,400,000.00. 10

Respondent claimed that complainant is a money-lender exacting high interest rates from
borrowers. 11 He narrated several instances and civil cases where complainant was engaged in moneylending where he divulged that even after defendants had already paid their loan, complainant still
persists in collecting from them.12 Respondent asserted that he knew of these transactions, because he
was among the four lawyers who handled complainant's case. 13
Respondent averred that from the time that Mejorado and Dr. Lee had become close to each other, the
latter had given Mejorado additional investments and one (1) Silverado Pick-up at the price of
P500,000.00 and fifty (50) sacks of old clothings. He claimed that the additional investments made by
Dr. Lee to Mejorado were given without his knowledge.
Atty. Simando further alleged that with Dr. Lee's investment of around P2 Million which included the
Silverado Pick-up and the fifty (50) sacks of old clothings, the latter required Mejorado to issue five (5)
checks with a total value of P7,033,500.00, an amount more than the actual value which Mejorado
received. 14 DCESaI
Atty. Simando added that while Dr. Lee and Mejorado agreed that the issued checks shall be presented to
the bank only upon payment of his informer's reward, Dr. Leepresented the checks to the bank despite
being aware that Mejorado's account had no funds for said checks. Atty. Simando further denied that he
refused to take legal action against Mejorado. He claimed that complainant never instructed him to file
legal action, since the latter knew that Mejorado is obligated to pay only upon receipt of his informer's
reward.
Finally, Atty. Simando insisted that he did not violate their lawyer-client relationship, since
Dr. Lee voluntarily made the financial investment with Mejorado and that he merely introduced
complainant to Mejorado. He further claimed that there is no conflict of interest because he is Mejorado's
lawyer relative to the latter's claim for informer's reward, and not Mejorado's lawyer against Dr. Lee. He
reiterated that there is no conflicting interest as there was no case between Mejorado and Dr. Lee that he
is handling for both of them. 15
In her Reply dated October 30, 2009, Dr. Lee denied that what she entered into was a mere investment.
She insisted that she lent the money to Mejorado and respondent, in his capacity as co-maker and the
transaction was actually a loan. 16 To prove her claim, Dr. Lee submitted the written loan
agreements/receipts which categorically stated that the money received was a loan with due dates,
signed by Mejorado and respondent as co-maker. 17 She further claimed that she did not know Mejorado

and it was respondent who brought him to her and requested her to assist Mejorado by lending him
money as, in fact, respondent even vouched for Mejorado and agreed to sign as co-maker.
Complainant further emphasized that what she was collecting is the payment only of the loan amounting
to One Million Four Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php1,400,000.00) which respondent had signed as comaker. Thus, respondent's claim that his obligation was already extinguished by novation holds no water,
since what was being collected is merely his obligation pertaining to the loan amounting to
Php1,400,000.00 only, and nothing more.
Finally, complainant lamented that respondent, in his comments, even divulged confidential informations
he had acquired while he was still her lawyer and even used it against her in the present case, thus,
committing another unethical conduct. She, therefore, maintained that respondent is guilty of violating the
lawyer-client confidentiality rule. HaEcAC
Both parties failed to appear during the mandatory conference on January 15, 2010. Both parties
requested for resetting of the mandatory conference, however, both failed to agree on a certain date.
Hence, the IBP, so as not to delay the disposition of the complaint, terminated the mandatory conference
and instead required the parties to submit their respective position papers. 18
On March 18, 2010, the IBP-CBD found Atty. Simando guilty of violating the Code of Professional
Responsibility. It recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for six (6) months.
On December 29, 2010, the IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the Report and
Recommendation of the IBP-CBD to suspend Atty. Simando from the practice of law for a period of six (6)
months.
Respondent moved for reconsideration.
On March 10, 2012, the IBP Board of Governors granted respondent's motion for reconsideration for lack
of sufficient evidence to warrant the penalty of suspension. The Resolution dated December 29, 2010
was reversed and the case against respondent was dismissed.
RULING
We reverse the ruling of the IBP Board of Governors.
Jurisprudence has provided three tests in determining whether a lawyer is guilty of representing
conflicting interest:

One test is whether a lawyer is duty-bound to fight for an issue or claim in behalf of
one client and, at the same time, to oppose that claim for the other client. Thus, if a
lawyer's argument for one client has to be opposed by that same lawyer in arguing
for the other client, there is a violation of the rule. EACTSH
Another test of inconsistency of interests is whether the acceptance of a new
relation would prevent the full discharge of the lawyer's duty of undivided
fidelity and loyalty to the client or invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or doubledealing in the performance of that duty. Still another test is whether the lawyer
would be called upon in the new relation to use against a former client any
confidential information acquired through their connection or previous
employment. 19
In the instant case, we find substantial evidence to support respondent's violation of the above
parameters, as established by the following circumstances on record:
First, it is undisputed that there was a lawyer-client relationship between complainant and
Atty. Simando as evidenced by the retainer fees received by respondent and the latter's representation in
certain legal matters pertaining to complainant's business;
Second, Atty. Simando admitted that Mejorado is another client of him albeit in a case claiming rewards
against the Bureau of Customs;
Third, Atty. Simando admitted that he was the one who introduced complainant and Mejorado to each
other for the purpose of entering into a financial transaction while having knowledge that complainant's
interests could possibly run in conflict with Mejorado's interests which ironically such client's interests, he
is duty-bound to protect; SHTcDE
Fourth, despite the knowledge of the conflicting interests between his two clients, respondent consented
in the parties' agreement and even signed as co-maker to the loan agreement;
Fifth, respondent's knowledge of the conflicting interests between his two clients was demonstrated
further by his own actions, when he:
(a) failed to act on Mejorado's failure to pay his obligation to complainant despite the
latter's instruction to do so;

(b) denied liability despite signing as co-maker in the receipts/promissory notes arising
from the loan agreement between his two clients;
(c) rebutted complainant's allegations against Mejorado and him, and even divulged
informations he acquired while he was still complainant's lawyer.
Clearly, it is improper for respondent to appear as counsel for one party (complainant as creditor) against
the adverse party (Mejorado as debtor) who is also his client, since a lawyer is prohibited from
representing conflicting interests. He may not, without being guilty of professional misconduct, act as
counsel for a person whose interest conflict with that of his present or former client.
Respondent's assertion that there is no conflict of interest because complainant and respondent are his
clients in unrelated cases fails to convince. His representation of opposing clients in both cases, though
unrelated, obviously constitutes conflict of interest or, at the least, invites suspicion of doubledealing. 20 Moreover, with the subject loan agreement entered into by the complainant and Mejorado,
who are both his clients, readily shows an apparent conflict of interest, moreso when he signed as comaker. IEDHAT
Likewise, respondent's argument that the money received was an investment and not a loan is difficult to
accept, considering that he signed as co-maker. Respondent is a lawyer and it is objectionable that he
would sign as co-maker if he knew all along that the intention of the parties was to engage in a mere
investment. Also, as a lawyer, signing as a co-maker, it can be presupposed that he is aware of the nature
of suretyship and the consequences of signing as co-maker. Therefore, he cannot escape liability without
exposing himself from administrative liability, if not civil liability. Moreover, we noted that while complainant
was able to show proof of receipts of various amounts of money loaned and received by Mejorado, and
signed by the respondent as co-maker, the latter, however, other than his bare denials, failed to show
proof that the money given was an investment and not a loan.
It must be stressed that the proscription against representation of conflicting interests finds application
where the conflicting interests arise with respect to the same general matter however slight the adverse
interest may be. It applies even if the conflict pertains to the lawyer's private activity or in the performance
of a function in a non-professional capacity. In the process of determining whether there is a conflict of
interest, an important criterion is probability, not certainty, of conflict. 21
We likewise note that respondent offered several excuses in order to avoid payment of his liability. First, in
his Answer to complainant's demand letter, he claimed there was novation which extinguished his

liability; Secondly, he claimed that the amount received by Mejorado for which he signed as co-maker was
merely an investment and not a loan. Finally, he alleged that it was agreed that the investment with profits
will be paid only after Mejorado receives the payment for his claim for reward which complainant violated
when she presented the checks for payment prematurely. These actuations of Atty. Simando do not speak
well of his reputation as a lawyer.22
Finally, we likewise find respondent guilty of violating Rule 21.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. 23 In his last-ditch effort to impeach the credibility of complainant, he divulged
informations 24 which he acquired in confidence during the existence of their lawyer-client
relationship. HaECDI
We held in Nombrado v. Hernandez 25 that the termination of the relation of attorney and client provides
no justification for a lawyer to represent an interest adverse to or in conflict with that of the former client.
The reason for the rule is that the client's confidence once reposed cannot be divested by the expiration
of the professional employment. Consequently, a lawyer should not, even after the severance of the
relation with his client, do anything which will injuriously affect his former client in any matter in which he
previously represented him nor should he disclose or use any of the client's confidences acquired in the
previous relation.
Accordingly, we reiterate that lawyers are enjoined to look at any representation situation from "the point
of view that there are possible conflicts," and further, "to think in terms of impaired loyalty" that is to
evaluate if his representation in any way will impair loyalty to a client. 26
WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Court resolves to ADOPT the findings and recommendation of
the IBP in Resolution No. XIX-2010-733 suspending respondent Atty. Amador L. Simando for six (6)
months from the practice of law, with a WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar offense will
warrant a more severe penalty.
Let copies of this Decision be furnished all courts, the Office of the Bar Confidant and the Integrated Bar
of the Philippines for their information and guidance. The Office of the Bar Confidant is DIRECTED to
append a copy of this Decision to respondent's record as member of the Bar.
Atty. Simando is DIRECTED to inform the Court of the date of his receipt of this Decision so that we can
determine the reckoning point when his suspension shall take effect.
This Decision shall be immediately executory.

SO ORDERED.
||| (Lee v. Simando, A.C. No. 9537, [June 10, 2013])
FIRST DIVISION
[A.C. No. 5858. December 11, 2003.]
ROGELIO R. SANTOS, SR., complainant, vs. ATTY. RODOLFO
C. BELTRAN, respondent.AaTH
DECISION
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J p:
This is an administrative complaint for disbarment 1 filed by Rogelio R. Santos, Sr. against Atty. Rodolfo
C. Beltran on the grounds of gross misconduct and malpractice.
The pertinent facts are as follows:
Spouses Filomeno Santiago Santos, Sr. and Benita Roxas Rodriguez had ten children, namely, Romeo,
Filomeno, Jr., Arturo, Erlinda, Ma. Alicia, Arcely, Renato, Alberto and Benito and complainant
Rogelio Santos, Sr. After the death of Filomeno, Benita donated their two residential lots situated at 11
Javier Baritan, Malabon, Metro Manila, consisting of 489 and 333.4 square meters, respectively, and
covered by Transfer Certificates of Titles (TCT) Nos. R-18060 and R-18061, including the ancestral house
situated thereon, in favor of the nine children, except complainant. Respondent lawyer notarized the Deed
of Donation. 2
Benita Rodriguez died. Complainant and his brother, Alberto, were appointed administrators 3 in the
intestate proceeding for the settlement of the spouses' estate, docketed as SP. Proc. No. 516-AF,
entitled In the Matter of the Intestate Estate of Spouses Filomeno Santiago Santos, Sr. and Benita Roxas
Rodriguez, filed before the Regional Trial Court of Cabanatuan City, Branch 26 thereof.
On November 9, 1999, complainant filed a verified complaint against respondent before the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD), alleging that when respondent notarized
the subject Deed of Donation, his siblings did not personally appear before him. 4 Complainant submitted

the affidavit executed by Benito and Renato attesting to the fact that they signed the Deed of Donation not
in the law office of the respondent but in their houses at Villa Benita Subdivision. The Deed also showed
that his siblings secured their Community Tax Certificates twenty-two days after the execution of the Deed
of Donation, or on September 9, 1994. Complainant contended that respondent notarized the Deed of
Donation in disregard of Article 904 5 of the Civil Code. Moreover, he argued that his siblings were
American citizens who were thus disqualified from owning real properties in the Philippines.

Complainant further alleged that respondent appeared as private prosecutor in Criminal Case No. 73560
for falsification of public document, which he filed against Renato and Benito, without being engaged by
him or authorized by the court; that respondent represented conflicting interest when he entered his
appearance as defense counsel in an ejectment case in which his former client, Erlinda R. SantosCrawford, was the plaintiff; and that respondent, through insidious machination acquired the titles of two
residential lots at Villa Benita Subdivision owned by Spouses Filomeno and Benita Santos.
Respondent denied the allegations. He confirmed the due execution of the Deed of Donation and
submitted in support thereof the affidavit executed by Mely Lachica, the secretary of his law office. In her
Affidavit, Lachica categorically stated that she caused all parties to sign the Deed. She, nevertheless
admitted that she forgot to change the date of the execution of the Deed from August 18, 1994 to
September 9, 1994 when all the parties had secured their CTCs. 6
Respondent argued that complainant's siblings may still acquire properties in the Philippines through
hereditary succession even though they were already American citizens. The certifications issued by the
Bureau of Immigration and Deportation were not conclusive proof of the arrival and departure of his
siblings considering that there were many ports of entry in the country. Respondent also declared that
complainant humiliated his mother when, in his presence and that of his siblings, complainant uttered the
unsavory Tagalog words, "Putang ina mo matanda ka, walanghiya ka, walang pinagkatandaan dapat
mamatay ka na." 7
Respondent denied having represented complainant in Criminal Case No. 73560 on December 15, 1999
when he appeared as private prosecutor. He explained that complainant filed a complaint for falsification
of public document against him and his nine siblings, docketed as I.S. No. 04-99-3187, before the Office

of the City Prosecutor of Cabanatuan City, relying on the affidavit executed by Benito and Renato that
they signed the Deed of Donation in their houses at Villa Benita and not at respondent's office. The
prosecutor dismissed the complaint. A second action for falsification of public document was filed by
complainant against Renato and Benito, docketed as Criminal Case No. 73560. Respondent appeared at
one of the hearings of the said case to defend himself from the accusation of Benito and Renato.
Respondent emphasized that he did not ask for any compensation from complainant for that isolated
appearance.
Respondent denied having acquired any property under litigation. On February 16, 1999, he bought 8 two
parcels of land inside Villa Benita Subdivision, covered by TCT Nos. T-50223 and 50225, from a
corporation owned by the Santoses, Fabern's Inc., and not from Spouses Filomeno and Benita Santos, as
claimed by complainant. He was surprised when sometime in August 2002, complainant caused the
annotation on the said titles of an adverse claim that the properties belonged to the estate of Spouses
Filomeno and Benita Santos. Complainant relied on the Contract of Development dated May 10, 1995
which Fabern's Inc. executed in favor of Villa Benita Management and Development Corporation where
respondent was one of the directors.
Respondent admitted having represented Erlinda R. Santos-Crawford in Civil Case No. 12105 for
ejectment, entitled "Erlinda R. Santos-Crawford v. Renato R.Santos and Rogelio R. Santos,
Sr.," 9 involving a land covered by TCT No. T-10168 at No. 1 F.S. Avenue, Villa Benita Subdivision,
Cabanatuan City and the improvements thereon. He also acted as defense counsel of Evalyn Valino,
Norberto Valino and Danilo Agsaway in Civil Case No. 14823 10 for ejectment filed by Rogelio Santos on
behalf of Erlinda R. Santos involving the same property. He emphasized that the decision in Civil Case
No. 12105 had long been executed, thus the attorney-client relationship between him and Erlinda SantosCrawford was also terminated. IcAaSD
On July 19, 2002, the IBP-CBD found respondent guilty of violating his notarial commission and
recommended that his commission be suspended for a period of one year. 11
The Board of Governors, in Resolution No. CBD Case No. 99-670, modified the recommendation, thus:
RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED, the
Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner of the above-entitled

case, herein made part of this Resolution/Decision as Annex "A", and, finding the
recommendation fully supported by the evidence on record and the applicable laws and
rules, with modification, and considering respondent's violation of his notarial
obligation, Respondent's Commission as Notary Public is hereby SUSPENDED, with
DISQUALIFICATION from being appointed as Notary Public for two (2) years from
notice of final decision. 12
On October 11, 2002, respondent filed a motion for reconsideration of the aforestated Resolution, which
was denied by the Board on December 14, 2002 on the ground that it has lost jurisdiction thereof upon its
endorsement to this Court. 13
In essence, complainant seeks the disbarment of the respondent for allegedly notarizing a Deed of
Donation without the affiants personally appearing before him. Indeed, the power to disbar must be
exercised with great caution, and may be imposed only in a clear case of misconduct that seriously
affects the standing and the character of the lawyer as an officer of the court and as a member of the
bar. 14 Corollary thereto, gross misconduct is defined as "improper or wrong conduct, the transgression
of some established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction of duty, willful in character,
and implies a wrongful intent and not mere error in judgment." 15
The rule is that a notarized document carries the evidentiary weight conferred upon it with respect to its
due execution, and documents acknowledged before a notary public have in their favor the presumption
of regularity. 16 In the instant case, complainant failed to controvert the said presumption by clear and
convincing evidence. Instead, the quantum of evidence shows that complainant's siblings appeared
before the respondent as notary public and in fact, signed the deed. The claim of Renato and
Benito Santos in their affidavit that they did not sign the document in the law office of the respondent but
in their houses at Villa Benita is admissible only against them. 17 Likewise, we find the allegation of the
complainant that it was physically impossible for his siblings to sign the document untenable. The
certifications issued by the BID that the complainant's siblings were absent at the time of the execution of
the Deed of Donation is not absolute. There are many ports of entry which complainant's siblings may
have used in coming into the country. The possibility that complainant's siblings executed and signed the
Deed is not remote. The discrepancy in the date stamped in the Deed and the date when complainant's
siblings obtained their CTCs had been substantially explained in the affidavit executed by the secretary of
the law office, Mely Lachica.

The allegation that respondent represented complainant in Criminal Case No. 73569 without being
retained or authorized by the court is also untenable. Respondent adequately explained his isolated
appearance at one of the hearings. The transcript of stenographic notes shows that respondent himself
was in doubt as to the nature of his appearance in the case. In entering his appearance as private
prosecutor, he did not intend to represent complainant but only to defend himself from the accusation of
Benito and Renato that he notarized the Deed of Donation in their absence. This was patent in the
transcript of stenographic notes wherein he admitted that he himself was in doubt as to his position. We
are not persuaded by complainant who tried to insinuate that it was unethical for the respondent to
represent him.
Anent the charge that respondent acquired properties under litigation in violation of Article 1491 18 of the
Civil Code, records show that respondent acquired the property from Fabern's Inc., and not from Spouses
Filemon and Benita Santos. Complainant's allegation that respondent as director of Villa Benita
Management and Development Corporation fraudulently caused the transfer of titles of properties,
specifically parcels of lands owned by the family corporation, Fabern's Inc., by executing a management
and development contract, lacks basis. Respondent may not be held accountable based on mere
allegation that through insidious machinations he deprived Spouses Filomeno and Benita Santos, now
their estate, of the properties. Surmises, suspicion and conjectures are not bases of culpability.
Lastly, complainant indicted respondent for representing conflicting interest in violation of Rule 15.03 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility, viz:
A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all
concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts.
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." This rule covers not only cases in which
confidential communications have been confided, but also those in which no confidence has been
bestowed or will be used. Also, there is conflict of interests if the acceptance of the new retainer will
require the attorney to perform an act which will injuriously affect his first 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 first 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
fidelity and loyalty to his client or invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double dealing in the performance
thereof. 19

In the case at bar, Civil Case No. 12105 for ejectment was filed by Arcely Y. Santos in behalf of
Erlinda Santos-Crawford against complainant and Renato Santos. Respondent, however appeared as
counsel for Evalyn Valino, Norberto Valino and Danilo Agsaway in Civil Case No. 14823 for ejectment
filed by complainant as attorney-in-fact of Erlinda Santos-Crawford. Civil Case No. 14823, although
litigated by complainant, was actually brought in behalf of and to protect the interest of Erlinda SantosCrawford. Respondent's act of representing the parties against whom his other client, Erlinda SantosCrawford, filed suit constituted conflict of interest.20
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Rodolfo Beltran is found GUILTY of representing conflicting interests and
is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year effective immediately. Respondent is
further STERNLY WARNED that a commission of the same or similar act in the future will be dealt with
more severely.
Let copies of this Resolution be entered in the record of respondent and served on the IBP, as well as on
the Court Administrator who shall circulate it to all courts for their information and guidance.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C .J ., Panganiban, Carpio, and Azcuna, JJ ., concur.
||| (Santos, Sr. v. Beltran, A.C. No. 5858, [December 11, 2003], 463 PHIL 372-384)
SECOND DIVISION
[A.C. No. 9395. November 12, 2014.]
DARIA O. DAGING, complainant, vs. ATTY. RIZ TINGALON L. DAVIS, respondent.
RESOLUTION

DEL CASTILLO, J p:
This administrative complaint for disbarment arose from an Affidavit Complaint 1 filed by Daria
O. Daging (complainant) before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), Benguet Chapter, 2 against
Atty. Riz Tingalon L. Davis (respondent).
Antecedents
Complainant was the owner and operator of Nashville Country Music Lounge. She leased from Benjie
Pinlac (Pinlac) a building space located at No. 22 Otek St., Baguio City where she operated the bar.
Meanwhile, complainant received a Retainer Proposal 3 from Davis & Sabling Law Office signed by
respondent and his partner Atty. Amos Saganib Sabling (Atty. Sabling). This eventually resulted in the
signing by the complainant, the respondent and Atty. Sabling of a Retainer Agreement 4 dated March 7,
2005.
Because complainant was delinquent in paying the monthly rentals, Pinlac terminated the lease. Together
with Novie Balageo (Balageo) and respondent, Pinlac went to complainant's music bar, inventoried all the
equipment therein, and informed her that Balageo would take over the operation of the bar. Complainant
averred that subsequently respondent acted as business partner of Balageo in operating the bar under
her business name, which they later renamed Amarillo Music Bar.
Complainant likewise alleged that she filed an ejectment case against Pinlac and Balageo before the
Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Branch 1, Baguio City. At that time, Davis & Sabling Law Office
was still her counsel as their Retainer Agreement remained subsisting and in force. However, respondent
appeared as counsel for Balageo in that ejectment case and filed, on behalf of the latter, an Answer with
Opposition to the Prayer for the Issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Injunction. 5
In his Comment, 6 respondent denied participation in the takeover or acting as a business partner of
Balageo in the operation of the bar. He asserted that Balageo is the sole proprietress of the
establishment. He insisted that it was Atty. Sabling, his partner, who initiated the proposal and was in fact
the one who was able to convince complainant to accept the law office as her retainer. Respondent
maintained that he never obtained any knowledge or information regarding the business of complainant
who used to consult only Atty. Sabling. Respondent admitted though having represented Balageo in the

ejectment case, but denied that he took advantage of the Retainer Agreement between complainant
and Davis and Sabling Law Office. Thus:
3.a Prior to the engagement of the Complainant of the DAVIS and SABLING LAW
OFFICE as her retainer, Novie Balageo was already one of the Clients of Respondent
in several cases; ITaESD
3.b Sometime in the last week of the month of May 2005, while Respondent was in his
office doing some legal works, Novie Balageo called up Respondent informing the latter
that his assistance is needed for purposes of conducting an inventory of all items at the
former Nashville Country Music Lounge;
3.c Respondent [asked] Novie Balageo [the purpose of] the inventory [to which] the
latter . . . responded . . . that she entered [into] a lease contract with the present
administrator of the building, Benjie Pinlac;
3.d Respondent, to his disbelief requested Novie Balageo to go [to] the LAW OFFICE
for further clarification of the matter. Thereafter, Respondent was later informed that the
business of Complainant was taken over and operated by Mr. Benjie Pinlac for seven
days. Furthermore, Mr. Benjie Pinlac offered the said place to Novie Balageo which the
latter readily accepted;
3.e [Left] with no recourse, Respondent requested one of his staff to assist Novie
Balageo in conducting an inventory. Furthermore, Respondent never acted as partner
of Novie Balageo in operating the former Nashville Country Music Lounge;
3.f When Complainant filed the civil case for Ejectment against Novie Balageo and
Benjie Pinlac, Respondent represented the former thereof without taking advantage of
the retainership contract between the DAVIS and SABLING LAW OFFICE [and]
Complainant as Respondent has no knowledge or information of any matters related by
complainant to Atty. Sabling regarding the former's business;

3.g While the Complaint was pending, respondent was . . . informed by Novie Balageo
and Benjie Pinlac of the truth of all matters . . . which . . . Respondent [was unaware
of];
3.h However, for the interest of justice and fair play, . . . Respondent [deemed it
prudent] to . . . withdraw as Counsel for Novie Balageo. Hence, Respondent filed his
Motion to Withdraw As Counsel. . . .
3.i The civil case was subsequently dismissed for lack of jurisdiction over the
[Complaint's] subject matter. . . . 7
On October 15, 2008, the Investigating Commissioner rendered a Report and Recommendation 8 finding
respondent guilty of betrayal of his client's trust and for misuse of information obtained from his client to
the disadvantage of the latter and to the advantage of another person. He recommended that respondent
be suspended from the practice of law for a period of one year.
On December 11, 2008, the IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the Report and
Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner. 9 Upon motion of the respondent, it reduced the
penalty imposed to six months suspension considering that there is no proof that respondent actually
handled any previous legal matters involving complainant. 10
Our Ruling
It is undisputed that complainant entered into a Retainer Agreement dated March 7, 2005 with
respondent's law firm. This agreement was signed by the respondent and attached to the rollo of this
case. And 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 Baguio City. In fact, respondent filed on behalf of said Balageo an Answer with Opposition to the
Prayer for the Issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Injunction dated July 11, 2005. It was only on August 26,
2005 when respondent withdrew his appearance for Balageo.
Based on the established facts, it is indubitable that respondent transgressed Rule 15.03 of Canon 15 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility. It provides:

Rule 15.03 A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written
consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts.
"A lawyer may not, without being guilty of professional misconduct, act as counsel for a person whose
interest conflicts with that of his present or former client." 11 The prohibition against representing
conflicting interests is absolute and the rule applies even if the lawyer has acted in good faith and with no
intention to represent conflicting interests. 12 In Quiambao v. Atty. Bamba, 13 this Court emphasized that
lawyers are expected not only to keep inviolate the client's confidence, 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 of paramount importance in the administration of justice. 14
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, 15 reiterated in Gonzales v. Atty. Cabucana, Jr., 16 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 advantage of any information acquired by his law
firm in the course of its professional dealings with the complainant, even assuming it to be true, is of no
moment. Undeniably aware of the fact that complainant is a client of his law firm, respondent should have
immediately informed both the complainant and Balageo that he, as well as the other members of his law
firm, cannot represent any of them in their legal tussle; otherwise, they would be representing conflicting
interests and violate the Code of Professional Responsibility. Indeed, respondent could have simply
advised both complainant and Balageo to instead engage the services of another lawyer.
The penalty for representing conflicting interests may either be reprimand or suspension from the practice
of law ranging from six months to two years. 17 We thus adopt the recommendation of the IBP Board of
Governors.

WHEREFORE, the Court ADOPTS and AFFIRMS the January 15, 2012 Resolution of the Integrated Bar
of the Philippines Board of Governors. Atty. Riz Tingalon L. Davis is found GUILTY of violating Rule
15.03, Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice
of law for a period of six (6) months effective upon receipt of this Resolution. He is warned that a
commission of the same or similar offense in the future will result in the imposition of a stiffer penalty.
Let a copy of this Resolution be entered into the records of Atty. Riz Tingalon L. Davis and furnished to
the Office of the Clerk of Court, the Office of the Bar Confidant, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and
all courts in the Philippines, for their information and guidance.
Atty. Riz Tingalon L. Davis is DIRECTED to inform the Court of the date of his receipt of this Resolution.
SO ORDERED.
||| (Daging v. Davis, A.C. No. 9395 (Resolution), [November 12, 2014])

FIRST DIVISION
[A.C. No. 6836. January 23, 2006.]
LETICIA GONZALES, complainant, vs. ATTY.
MARCELINO CABUCANA, respondent.
RESOLUTION
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J p:
Before this Court is a complaint filed by Leticia Gonzales (Gonzales) praying that Atty.
Marcelino Cabucana, (respondent) be disbarred for representing conflicting interests.
On January 8, 2004, Gonzales filed a petition before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) alleging
that: she was the complainant in a case for sum of money and damages filed before the Municipal Trial
Court in Cities (MTCC) of Santiago City, docketed as Civil Case No. 1-567 where she was represented by
the law firm CABUCANA,CABUCANA, DE GUZMAN AND CABUCANA LAW OFFICE, with Atty.

Edmar Cabucana handling the case and herein respondent as an associate/partner; on February 26,
2001, a decision was rendered in the civil case ordering the losing party to pay Gonzales the amount of
P17,310.00 with interest and P6,000.00 as attorney's fees; Sheriff Romeo Gatcheco, failed to fully
implement the writ of execution issued in connection with the judgment which prompted Gonzales to file a
complaint against the said sheriff with this Court; in September 2003, Sheriff Gatcheco and his wife went
to the house of Gonzales; they harassed Gonzales and asked her to execute an affidavit of desistance
regarding her complaint before this Court; Gonzales thereafter filed against the Gatchecos criminal cases
for trespass, grave threats, grave oral defamation, simple coercion and unjust vexation; notwithstanding
the pendency of Civil Case No. 1-567, where respondent's law firm was still representing Gonzales,
herein respondent represented the Gatchecos in the cases filed by Gonzales against the said spouses;
respondent should be disbarred from the practice of law since respondent's acceptance of the cases of
the Gatchecos violates the lawyer-client relationship between complainant and respondent's law firm and
renders respondent liable under the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) particularly Rules
10.01, 1 13.01, 2 15.02, 3 15.03, 4 21.01 5 and 21.02. 6
On January 9, 2004, the IBP-Commission on Bar Discipline ordered Atty. Marcelino Cabucana, Jr. to
submit his Answer to the complaint. 7
In his Answer, respondent averred: He never appeared and represented complainant in Civil Case No. 1567 since it was his brother, Atty. Edmar Cabucana who appeared and represented Gonzales in said
case. He admitted that he is representing Sheriff Gatcheco and his wife in the cases filed against them
but claimed that his appearance is pro bono and that the spouses pleaded with him as no other counsel
was willing to take their case. He entered his 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 filed against them by Gonzaleswere merely instigated by a high ranking official who
wanted to get even with them for their refusal to testify in favor of the said official in another case. At first,
respondent declined to serve as counsel of the spouses as he too did not want to incur the ire of the highranking official, but after realizing that he would be abdicating a sworn duty to delay no man for money or
malice, respondent entered his appearance as defense counsel of the spouses free of any charge. Not
long after, the present complaint was crafted against respondent which shows that respondent is now the
subject of a 'demolition job.' The civil case filed by Gonzales where respondent's brother served as
counsel is different and distinct from the criminal cases filed by complainant against the Gatcheco
spouses, thus, he did not violate any canon on legal ethics. 8

Gonzales filed a Reply contending that the civil case handled by respondent's brother is closely
connected with the cases of the Gatchecos which the respondent is handling; that the claim of respondent
that he is handling the cases of the spouses pro bono is not true since he has his own agenda in offering
his services to the spouses; and that the allegation that she is filing the cases against the spouses
because she is being used by a powerful person is not true since she filed the said cases out of her own
free will. 9
The Commission on Bar Discipline of the IBP sent to the parties a Notice of Mandatory Conference dated
March 1, 2004. 10 On the scheduled conference, only a representative of complainant
appeared. 11 Commissioner Demaree Raval of the IBP-CBD then directed both parties to file their
respective verified position papers. 12
Complainant filed a Memorandum reiterating her earlier assertions and added that respondent prepared
and notarized counter-affidavits of the Gatcheco spouses; that the high-ranking official referred to by
respondent is Judge Ruben Plata and the accusations of respondent against the said judge is an attack
against a brother in the profession which is a violation of the CPR; and that respondent continues to use
the name of De Guzman in their law firm despite the fact that said partner has already been appointed as
Assistant Prosecutor of Santiago City, again in violation of the CPR. 13
Respondent filed his Position Paper restating his allegations in his Answer. 14
On August 23, 2004, Commissioner Wilfredo E.J.E. Reyes issued an Order notifying both parties to
appear before his office on October 28, 2004 for a clarificatory question regarding said case. 15 On the
said date, only respondent appeared 16 presenting a sworn affidavit executed by Gonzales withdrawing
her complaint against respondent. It reads:
SINUMPAANG SALAYSAY
TUNGKOL SA PAG-UURONG NG DEMANDA
Ako, si LETICIA GONZALES, nasa tamang edad, Pilipino, may asawa, at nakatira sa
Barangay Dubinan East, Santiago City, makaraang manumpa ayon sa batas ay
nagsasabing:

Ako ang nagdedemanda o petitioner sa CBD Case No. 04-1186 na may pamagat
na "Leticia Gonzales versus Atty. Marcelino C. Cabucana, Jr." na kasalukuyang
nahaharap sa Commission on Bar Discipline ng Integrated Bar of the Philippines
Ang pagkakahain ng naturang demanda ay nag-ugat sa di-pagkakaintindihan na
namamagitan sa akin at nina Mr. and Mrs. Romeo and Anita Gatcheco.
Dahil sa aking galit sa naturang mag-asawa, idinawit ko si Atty. Marcelino
C. Cabucana, Jr. sa sigalot na namamagitan sa akin at sa magasawang Gatcheco, gayong nalalaman ko na si Atty. Marcelino C. Cabucana ay
walang nalalaman sa naturang di pagkakaintindihan. aEHADT
Makaraang pag-isipang mabuti ang paghain ko ng demanda kontra kay Atty. Marcelino
C. Cabucana, Jr., nakumbinsi ako na ang pagdedemanda ko kay Atty. Marcelino
C. Cabucana, Jr. ay isang malaking pagkakamali dahil siya ay walang kinalalaman
(sic) sa di pagkakaintindihan naming(sic) ng mag-asawang Gatcheco.
Si Atty. Marcelino C. Cabucana, Jr. ay di ko rin naging abogado sa Civil Case No. 1567 (MTCC Br. I Santiago City) na inihain ko kontra kay Eduardo Mangano.
Nais kong ituwid ang lahat kung kaya't aking iniuurong ang naturang kasong inihain ko
kontra kay Atty. Marcelino C. Cabucana, Jr. at dahil dito ay hindi na ako interesado
pang ituloy and naturang kaso, at aking hinihiling sa kinauukulan na dismisin na ang
naturang kaso.
Ginawa ko ang sinumpaang salaysay na ito upang patotohanan sa lahat ng nakasaad
dito. 17
Commissioner Reyes issued an Order dated October 28, 2004 requiring Gonzales to appear before him
on November 25, 2004, to affirm her statements and to be subject to clarificatory
questioning. 18 However, none of the parties appeared. 19 On February 17, 2005, only respondent was
present. Commissioner Reyes then considered the case as submitted for resolution. 20

On February 24, 2005, Commissioner Reyes submitted his Report and Recommendation, portions of
which are quoted hereunder:
The Undersigned Commissioner believes that the respondent made a mistake in the
acceptance of the administrative case of Romeo Gatcheco, however, the Commission
(sic) believes that there was no malice and bad faith in the said acceptance and this
can be shown by the move of the complainant to unilaterally withdraw the case which
she filed against Atty. Marcelino C. Cabucana, Jr. However, Atty. Cabucana is reminded
to be more careful in the acceptance of cases as conflict of interests might arise.
It is respectfully recommended that Atty. Marcelino C. Cabucana, Jr. (be) sternly
warned and reprimanded and . . . advised to be more circumspect and careful in
accepting cases which might result in conflict of interests. 21
On June 25, 2005, a Resolution was passed by the Board of Governors of the IBP, to wit:
RESOLUTION NO. XVI-2005-153
CBD CASE NO. 03-1186
Leticia Gonzales vs.
Atty. Marcelino Cabucana, Jr.
RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED,
the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner of the aboveentitled case, herein made part of this Resolution as Annex "A"; and, finding the
recommendation fully supported by the evidence on record and the applicable laws
and rules, and considering that respondent made (a) mistake in the acceptance of the
administrative case of Romeo Gatcheco, Atty. Marcelino Cabucana, Jr. is hereby
WARNED and REPRIMANDED and advised to be more circumspect and careful in
accepting cases which might result in conflict of interests. 22
Before going to the merits, let it be clarified that contrary to the report of Commissioner Reyes,
respondent did not only represent the Gatcheco spouses in the administrative case filed

by Gonzales against them. As respondent himself narrated in his Position Paper, he likewise acted as
their counsel in the criminal cases filed byGonzales against them. 23
With that settled, we find respondent guilty of violating Rule 15.03 of Canon 15 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, to wit:

Rule 15.03 A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interest except by written consent
of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts.
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. 24 Such prohibition is 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. 25Lawyers are expected not only to keep inviolate the client's confidence, 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 of paramount importance in the administration of justice. 26
One of the tests of inconsistency of interests is whether the acceptance of a new relation would prevent
the full discharge of the lawyer's duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty to the client or invite suspicion of
unfaithfulness or double-dealing in the performance of that duty. 27
As we expounded in the recent case of Quiambao vs. Bamba, 28
The proscription against representation of conflicting interests applies to a situation
where the opposing parties are present clients in the same action or in an unrelated
action. It is of no moment that the lawyer would not be called upon to contend for one
client that which the lawyer has to oppose for the 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 actions are wholly unrelated. It is enough that the opposing parties
in one case, one of whom would lose the suit, are present clients and the nature or
conditions of the lawyer's respective retainers with each of them would affect the
performance of the duty of undivided fidelity to both clients. 29

The claim of respondent that there is no conflict of interests in this case, as the civil case handled by their
law firm where Gonzales is the complainant and the criminal cases filed by Gonzales against the
Gatcheco spouses are not related, has no merit. The representation of opposing clients in said cases,
though unrelated, constitutes conflict of interests or, at the very least, invites suspicion of double-dealing
which this Court cannot allow. 30
Respondent further argued that it was his brother who represented Gonzales in the civil case and not him,
thus, there could be no conflict of interests. We do not agree. As respondent admitted, it was their law firm
which represented Gonzales in the civil case. Such being the case, the rule against representing
conflicting interests applies.
As we explained in the case of Hilado vs. David: 31
. . . [W]e . . . can not sanction his taking up the cause of the adversary of the party who
had sought and obtained legal advice from his firm; this, not necessarily to prevent any
injustice to the plaintiff but to keep above reproach the honor and integrity of the courts
and of the bar. Without condemning the respondent's conduct as dishonest, corrupt, or
fraudulent, we do believe that upon the admitted facts it is highly inexpedient. It had the
tendency to bring the profession, of which he is a distinguished member, "into public
disrepute and suspicion and undermine the integrity of justice." 32
The claim of respondent that he acted in good faith and with honest intention will also not exculpate him
as such claim does not render the prohibition inoperative. 33
In the same manner, his claim that he could not turn down the spouses as no other lawyer is willing to
take their case cannot prosper as it is settled that while there may be instances where lawyers cannot
decline representation they cannot be made to labor under conflict of interest between a present client
and a prospective one.34 Granting also that there really was no other lawyer who could handle the
spouses' case other 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 would involve
a conflict with another client then seek the written consent of all concerned after a full disclosure of the
facts. 35 These respondent failed to do thus exposing himself to the charge of double-dealing.

We note the affidavit of desistance filed by Gonzales. However, we are not bound by such desistance as
the present case involves public interest. 36 Indeed, the Court's exercise of its power to take cognizance
of administrative cases against lawyers is not for the purpose of enforcing civil remedies between parties,
but to protect the court and the public against an attorney guilty of unworthy practices in his profession. 37
In similar cases where the respondent was found guilty of representing conflicting interests a penalty
ranging from one to three years' suspension was imposed. 38
We shall consider however as mitigating circumstances the fact that he is representing the Gatcheco
spouses pro bono and that it was his firm and not respondent personally, which handled the civil case
of Gonzales. As recounted by complainant herself, Atty. Edmar Cabucana signed the civil case of
complainant by stating first the name of the law firm CABUCANA, CABUCANA, DE GUZMAN
AND CABUCANA LAW OFFICE, under which, his name and signature appear; while herein respondent
signed the pleadings for the Gatcheco spouses only with his name, 39 without any mention of the law
firm. We also note the observation of the IBP Commissioner Reyes that there was no malice and bad faith
in respondent's acceptance of the Gatchecos' cases as shown by the move of complainant to withdraw
the case.
Thus, for violation of Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and taking into
consideration the aforementioned mitigating circumstances, we impose the penalty of fine of P2,000.00.
WHEREFORE, Resolution No. XVI-2005-153 of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines is APPROVED with
MODIFICATION that respondent Atty. Marcelino Cabucana, Jr. is FINED the amount of Two Thousand
Pesos (P2,000.00) with a STERN WARNING that a commission of the same or similar act in the future
shall be dealt with more severely.
SO ORDERED.
Panganiban, C.J., Ynares-Santiago, Callejo, Sr. and Chico-Nazario, JJ., concur.
||| (Gonzales v. Cabucana, A.C. No. 6836, [January 23, 2006], 515 PHIL 296-308)

SECOND DIVISION

A.C. No. 9860, September 11, 2013

JOSEPHINE L. OROLA, MYRNA L. OROLA, MANUEL L. OROLA, MARY ANGELYN OROLABELARGA, MARJORIE MELBA OROLA-CALIP, AND KAREN OROLA, Complainants, v. ATTY.
JOSEPH ADOR RAMOS, Respondent.
RESOLUTION
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
For the Courts resolution is a disbarment complaint1 filed against respondent Atty. Joseph Ador Ramos
(respondent) for his violation of Rule 15.03, Canon 15 (Rule 15.03) of the Code of Professional
Responsibility (Code) and Section 20(e), Rule 138 of the Rules of Court (Rules).
The Facts
Complainants Josephine, Myrna, Manuel, (all surnamed Orola), Mary Angelyn Orola-Belarga (Mary
Angelyn), and Marjorie Melba Orola-Calip (Marjorie) are the children of the late Trinidad Laserna-Orola
(Trinidad), married to Emilio Q. Orola (Emilio).2cralaw virtualaw library
Meanwhile, complainant Karen Orola (Karen) is the daughter of Maricar Alba-Orola (Maricar) and Antonio
L. Orola (Antonio), the deceased brother of the above-named complainants and the son of Emilio. 3cralaw
virtualaw library
In the settlement of Trinidads estate, pending before the Regional Trial Court of Roxas City, Branch 18
(RTC) and docketed as Special Proceeding No. V-3639, the parties were represented by the following: (a)
Atty. Roy M. Villa (Atty. Villa) as counsel for and in behalf of Josephine, Myrna, Manuel, Mary Angelyn,
and Marjorie (Heirs of Trinidad); (b) Atty. Ely F. Azarraga, Jr. (Atty. Azarraga) as counsel for and in behalf
of Maricar, Karen, and the other heirs4 of the late Antonio (Heirs of Antonio),with respondent as
collaborating counsel; and (c) Atty. Aquiliana Brotarlo as counsel for and in behalf of Emilio, the initially
appointed administrator of Trinidads estate. In the course of the proceedings, the Heirs of Trinidad and
the Heirs of Antonio moved for the removal of Emilio as administrator and, in his stead, sought the
appointment of the latters son, Manuel Orola, which the RTC granted in an Order 5 dated September 20,
2007 (RTC Order). Subsequently, or on October 10, 2007, respondent filed an Entry of Appearance as
collaborating counsel for Emilio in the same case and moved for the reconsideration of the RTC
Order.6cralaw virtualaw library
Due to the respondents new engagement, complainants filed the instant disbarment complaint before the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), claiming that he violated: (a) Rule 15.03 of the Code, as he
undertook to represent conflicting interests in the subject case; 7 and (b) Section 20(e), Rule 138 of the
Rules, as he breached the trust and confidence reposed upon him by his clients, the Heirs of
Antonio.8 Complainants further claimed that while Maricar, the surviving spouse of Antonio and the mother
of Karen, consented to the withdrawal of respondents appearance, the same was obtained only on
October 18, 2007, or after he had already entered his appearance for Emilio on October 10, 2007. 9 In this
accord, respondent failed to disclose such fact to all the affected heirs and, as such, was not able to
obtain their written consent as required under the Rules. 10cralaw virtualaw library
For his part, respondent refuted the abovementioned charges, contending that he never appeared as
counsel for the Heirs of Trinidad or for the Heirs of Antonio. He pointed out that the records of the case
readily show that the Heirs of Trinidad were represented by Atty. Villa, while the Heirs of Antonio were
exclusively represented by Atty. Azarraga.11 He averred that he only accommodated Maricar's request to
temporarily appear on her behalf as their counsel of record could not attend the scheduled June 16 and
July 14, 2006 hearings and that his appearances thereat were free of charge. 12 In fact, he obtained
Maricars permission for him to withdraw from the case as no further communications transpired after
these two hearings. Likewise, he consulted Maricar before he undertook to represent Emilio in the same

case.13 He added that he had no knowledge of the fact that the late Antonio had other heirs and, in this
vein, asserted that no information was disclosed to him by Maricar or their counsel of record at any
instance.14 Finally, he clarified that his representation for Emilio in the subject case was more of a
mediator, rather than a litigator,15 and that since no settlement was forged between the parties, he
formally withdrew his appearance on December 6, 2007. 16 In support of his assertions, respondent
submitted the affidavits of Maricar17 and Atty. Azarraga18 relative to his limited appearance and his
consultation with Maricar prior to his engagement as counsel for Emilio.
The Recommendation and Action of the IBP
In the Report and Recommendation19 dated September 15, 2008 submitted by IBP Investigating
Commissioner Jose I. De La Rama, Jr. (Investigating Commissioner), respondent was found guilty of
representing conflicting interests only with respect to Karen as the records of the case show that he never
acted as counsel for the other complainants. The Investigating Commissioner observed that while
respondent's withdrawal of appearance was with the express conformity of Maricar, respondent
nonetheless failed to obtain the consent of Karen, who was already of age and one of the Heirs of
Antonio, as mandated under Rule 15.03 of the Code. 20cralaw virtualaw library
On the other hand, the Investigating Commissioner held that there was no violation of Section 20, Rule
138 of the Rules as complainants themselves admitted that respondent did not acquire confidential
information from his former client nor did he use against the latter any knowledge obtained in the course
of his previous employment.21 Considering that it was respondent's first offense, the Investigating
Commissioner found the imposition of disbarment too harsh a penalty and, instead, recommended that he
be severely reprimanded for his act with warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts would be
dealt with more severely.22cralaw virtualaw library
The IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved with modification the aforementioned report in its
Resolution No. XVIII-2008-64123 dated December 11, 2008 (Resolution No. XVIII-2008-641), finding the
same to be fully supported by the evidence on record and the applicable laws and rules but imposed
against respondent the penalty of six (6) months suspension from the practice of law.
Respondent's motion for reconsideration24 was denied in IBP Resolution No. XX-2013-1725 dated January
3, 2013.
The Issue Before the Court
The sole issue in this case is whether or not respondent is guilty of representing conflicting interests in
violation of Rule 15.03 of the Code.
The Courts Ruling
The Court concurs with the IBPs finding that respondent violated Rule 15.03 of the Code, but reduced the
recommended period of suspension to three (3) months.
Rule 15.03 of the Code reads:chanrobles virtua1aw 1ibrary
CANON 15 A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND LOYALTY IN ALL HIS
DEALINGS AND TRANSACTIONS WITH HIS CLIENTS.
Rule 15.03 - A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all
concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts. (Emphasis supplied)
Under the afore-cited rule, it is explicit that a lawyer is prohibited from representing new clients whose
interests oppose those of a former client in any manner, whether or not they are parties in the same
action or on totally unrelated cases. The prohibition is founded on the principles of public policy and good
taste.26 It behooves lawyers not only to keep inviolate the client's confidence, 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 of paramount importance in the administration of justice. 27 InHornilla v.

Salunat28 (Hornilla), the Court explained the concept of conflict of interest, to wit:chanrobles virtua1aw
1ibrary
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. This rule covers not only cases in
which confidential communications have been confided, but also those in which no confidence has been
bestowed or will be used. Also, there is conflict of interests if the acceptance of the new retainer will
require the attorney to perform an act which will injuriously affect his first 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 first 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
fidelity and loyalty to his client or invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double dealing in the performance
thereof.29 (Emphasis supplied; citations omitted)
It must, however, be noted that a lawyers immutable duty to a former client does not cover transactions
that occurred beyond the lawyers employment with the client. The intent of the law is to impose upon the
lawyer the duty to protect the clients interests only on matters that he previously handled for the former
client and not for matters that arose after the lawyer-client relationship has terminated. 30cralaw virtualaw
library
Applying the above-stated principles, the Court agrees with the IBPs finding that respondent represented
conflicting interests and, perforce, must be held administratively liable therefor.
Records reveal that respondent was the collaborating counsel not only for Maricar as claimed by him, but
for all the Heirs of Antonio in Special Proceeding No. V-3639. In the course thereof, the Heirs of Trinidad
and the Heirs of Antonio succeeded in removing Emilio as administrator for having committed acts
prejudicial to their interests. Hence, when respondent proceeded to represent Emilio for the purpose of
seeking his reinstatement as administrator in the same case, he clearly worked against the very interest
of the Heirs of Antonio particularly, Karen in violation of the above-stated rule.
Respondent's justification that no confidential information was relayed to him cannot fully exculpate him
for the charges against him since the rule on conflict of interests, as enunciated in Hornilla, provides an
absolute prohibition from representation with respect to opposing parties in the same case. In other
words, a lawyer cannot change his representation from one party to the latters opponent in the same
case. That respondents previous appearances for and in behalf of the Heirs of Antonio was only a
friendly accommodation cannot equally be given any credence since the aforesaid rule holds even if the
inconsistency is remote or merely probable or even if the lawyer has acted in good faith and with no
intention to represent conflicting interests.31cralaw virtualaw library
Neither can respondent's asseveration that his engagement by Emilio was more of a mediator than a
litigator and for the purpose of forging a settlement among the family members render the rule
inoperative. In fact, even on that assertion, his conduct is likewise improper since Rule 15.04, 32Canon 15
of the Code similarly requires the lawyer to obtain the written consent of all concerned before he may act
as mediator, conciliator or arbitrator in settling disputes. Irrefragably, respondent failed in this respect as
the records show that respondent was remiss in his duty to make a full disclosure of his impending
engagement as Emilios counsel to all the Heirs of Antonio particularly, Karen and equally secure their
express written consent before consummating the same. Besides, it must be pointed out that a lawyer
who acts as such in settling a dispute cannot represent any of the parties to it. 33 Accordingly, for
respondents violation of the aforestated rules, disciplinary sanction is warranted.
In this case, the penalty recommended by the Investigating Commissioner was increased from severe
reprimand to a suspension of six (6) months by the IBP Board of Governors in its Resolution No. XVIII2008-641. However, the Court observes that the said resolution is bereft of any explanation showing the
bases of the IBP Board of Governors modification; as such, it contravened Section 12(a), Rule 139-B of
the Rules which specifically mandates that [t]he decision of the Board upon such review shall be in
writing and shall clearly and distinctly state the facts and the reasons on which it is based. 34 Verily, the

Court looks with disfavor the change in the recommended penalty without any ample justification therefor.
To this end, the Court is wont to remind the IBP Board of Governors of the importance of the requirement
to announce in plain terms its legal reasoning, since the requirement that its decision in disciplinary
proceedings must state the facts and the reasons on which the same is based is akin to what is required
of courts in promulgating their decisions. The reasons for handing down a penalty occupy no lesser
station than any other portion of the ratio.35cralaw virtualaw library
In the foregoing light, the Court finds the penalty of suspension from the practice of law for a period of
three (3) months to be more appropriate taking into consideration the following factors: first, respondent
is a first time offender; second, it is undisputed that respondent merely accommodated Maricars request
out of gratis to temporarily represent her only during the June 16 and July 14, 2006 hearings due to her
lawyers unavailability; third, it is likewise undisputed that respondent had no knowledge that the late
Antonio had any other heirs aside from Maricar whose consent he actually acquired (albeit shortly after
his first appearance as counsel for and in behalf of Emilio), hence, it can be said that he acted in good
faith; and fourth, complainants admit that respondent did not acquire confidential information from the
Heirs of Antonio nor did he use against them any knowledge obtained in the course of his previous
employment, hence, the said heirs were not in any manner prejudiced by his subsequent engagement
with Emilio. Notably, in Ilusorio-Bildner v. Lokin, Jr.,36 the Court similarly imposed the penalty of
suspension from the practice of law for a period of three months to the counsel therein who represented
parties whose interests are hostile to his other clients in another case.
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Joseph Ador Ramos is hereby held GUILTY of representing conflicting
interests in violation of Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, he
is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of three (3) months, with WARNINGthat a
repetition of the same or similar acts in the future will be dealt with more
severely.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
SO ORDERED.

SECOND DIVISION

[A.C. No. 6174. November 16, 2011.]

LYDIA CASTRO-JUSTO, complainant, vs. ATTY. RODOLFO T. GALING, respondent.

DECISION

PEREZ, J p:
Before us for consideration is Resolution No. XVIII-2007-196 1 of the Board of Governors, Integrated Bar
of the Philippines (IBP), relative to the complaint 2 for disbarment filed by Lydia Castro-Justo against Atty.
Rodolfo T. Galing.

Complainant Justo alleged that sometime in April 2003, she engaged the services of respondent
Atty. Galing in connection with dishonored checks issued by Manila City Councilor Arlene W. Koa (Ms.
Koa). After she paid his professional fees, the respondent drafted and sent a letter to Ms. Koa demanding
payment of the checks. 3Respondent advised complainant to wait for the lapse of the period indicated in
the demand letter before filing her complaint.
On 10 July 2003, complainant filed a criminal complaint against Ms. Koa for estafa and violation of Batas
Pambansa Blg. 22 before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Manila. 4
On 27 July 2003, she received a copy of a Motion for Consolidation 5 filed by respondent for and on
behalf of Ms. Koa, the accused in the criminal cases, and the latter's daughter Karen Torralba (Ms.
Torralba). Further, on 8 August 2003, respondent appeared as counsel for Ms. Koa before the prosecutor
of Manila.
Complainant submits that by representing conflicting interests, respondent violated the Code of
Professional Responsibility. CTcSIA
In his Comment, 6 respondent denied the allegations against him. He admitted that he drafted a demand
letter for complainant but argued that it was made only in deference to their long standing friendship and
not by reason of a professional engagement as professed by complainant. He denied receiving any
professional fee for the services he rendered. It was allegedly their understanding that complainant would
have to retain the services of another lawyer. He alleged that complainant, based on that agreement,
engaged the services of Atty. Manuel A. Ao.
To bolster this claim, respondent pointed out that the complaint filed by complainant against Ms. Koa for
estafa and violation of B.P. Blg. 22 was based not on the demand letter he drafted but on the demand
letter prepared by Atty. Manuel A. Ao.
Respondent contended that he is a close friend of the opposing parties in the criminal cases. He further
contended that complainant Justo and Ms. Koa are likewise long time friends, as in fact, they are
"comares" for more than 30 years since complainant is the godmother of Ms. Torralba. 7 Respondent
claimed that it is in this light that he accommodated Ms. Koa and her daughter's request that they be
represented by him in the cases filed against them by complainant and complainant's daughter. He
maintained that the filing of the Motion for Consolidation which is a non-adversarial pleading does not
evidence the existence of a lawyer-client relationship between him and Ms. Koa and Ms. Torralba.

Likewise, his appearance in the joint proceedings should only be construed as an effort on his part to
assume the role of a moderator or arbiter of the parties.
He insisted that his actions were merely motivated by an intention to help the parties achieve an out of
court settlement and possible reconciliation. He reported that his efforts proved fruitful insofar as he had
caused Ms. Koa to pay complainant the amount of P50,000.00 in settlement of one of the two checks
subject of I.S. No. 03G-19484-86.
Respondent averred that the failure of Ms. Koa and Ms. Torralba to make good the other checks caused a
lot of consternation on the part of complainant. This allegedly led her to vent her ire on respondent and
file the instant administrative case for conflict of interest.
In a resolution dated 19 October 2007, the Board of Governors of the IBP adopted and approved with
modification the findings of its Investigating Commissioner. They found respondent guilty of violating
Canon 15, Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility by representing conflicting interests and
for his daring audacity and for the pronounced malignancy of his act. It was recommended that he be
suspended from the practice of law for one (1) year with a warning that a repetition of the same or similar
acts will be dealt with more severely. 8
We agree with the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner, 9 as adopted by the
Board of Governors of the IBP.
It was established that in April 2003, respondent was approached by complainant regarding the
dishonored checks issued by Manila City Councilor Koa.
It was also established that on 25 July 2003, a Motion for Consolidation was filed by respondent in I.S.
No. 03G-19484-86 entitled "Lydia Justo vs. Arlene Koa" and I.S. No. 03G-19582-84 entitled "Lani
C. Justo vs. Karen Torralba". Respondent stated that the movants in these cases are mother and
daughter while complainants are likewise mother and daughter and that these cases arose out from the
same transaction. Thus, movants and complainants will be adducing the same sets of evidence and
witnesses.
Respondent argued that no lawyer-client relationship existed between him and complainant because
there was no professional fee paid for the services he rendered. Moreover, he argued that he drafted the
demand letter only as a personal favor to complainant who is a close friend. cTIESa

We are not persuaded. A lawyer-client relationship can exist notwithstanding the close friendship between
complainant and respondent. The relationship was established the moment complainant sought legal
advice from respondent regarding the dishonored checks. By drafting the demand letter respondent
further affirmed such relationship. The fact that the demand letter was not utilized in the criminal
complaint filed and that respondent was not eventually engaged by complainant to represent her in the
criminal cases is of no moment. As observed by the Investigating Commissioner, by referring to
complainant Justo as "my client" in the demand letter sent to the defaulting debtor, 10 respondent
admitted the existence of the lawyer-client relationship. Such admission effectively estopped him from
claiming otherwise.
Likewise, the non-payment of professional fee will not exculpate respondent from liability. Absence of
monetary consideration does not exempt lawyers from complying with the prohibition against pursuing
cases with conflicting interests. The prohibition attaches from the moment the attorney-client relationship
is established and extends beyond the duration of the professional relationship. 11 We held in Burbe v.
Atty. Magulta 12 that it is not necessary that any retainer be paid, promised or charged; neither is it
material that the attorney consulted did not afterward handle the case for which his service had been
sought. 13
Under Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, "[a] lawyer shall not represent
conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts."
Respondent was therefore bound to refrain from representing parties with conflicting interests in a
controversy. By doing so, without showing any proof that he had obtained the written consent of the
conflicting parties, respondent should be sanctioned.
The prohibition against representing conflicting interest is founded on principles of public policy and good
taste. 14 In the course of the lawyer-client relationship, the lawyer learns of the facts connected with the
client's case, including the weak and strong points of the case. The nature of the relationship is, therefore,
one of trust and confidence of the highest degree. 15
It behooves lawyers not only to keep inviolate the client's confidence, 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 of paramount importance in the administration of justice. 16
The case of Hornilla v. Atty. Salunat 17 is instructive on this concept, thus:

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.' 18 This rule covers not only cases in which confidential
communications have been confided, but also those in which no confidence has been
bestowed or will be used. 19 Also, there is conflict of interests if the acceptance of the
new retainer will require the attorney to perform an act which will injuriously affect his
first 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 first client any knowledge acquired through
their connection. 20 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 fidelity and loyalty to his client or invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or
double dealing in the performance thereof. 21
The excuse proffered by respondent that it was not him but Atty. Ao who was eventually engaged by
complainant will not exonerate him from the clear violation of Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. The take-over of a client's cause of action by another lawyer does not give the former
lawyer the right to represent the opposing party. It is not only malpractice but also constitutes a violation
of the confidence resulting from the attorney-client relationship. aCSEcA
Considering that this is respondent's first infraction, the disbarment sought in the complaint is deemed to
be too severe. As recommended by the Board of Governors of the IBP, the suspension from the practice
of law for one (1) year is warranted.
Accordingly, the Court resolved to SUSPEND Atty. Rodolfo T. Galing from the practice of law for one (1)
year, with a WARNINGthat a repetition of the same or similar offense will warrant a more severe penalty.
Let copies of this Decision be furnished all courts, the Office of the Bar Confidant and the Integrated Bar
of the Philippines for their information and guidance. The Office of the Bar Confidant is directed to append
a copy of this Decision to respondent's record as member of the Bar.
SO ORDERED.
Carpio, Brion, Sereno and Reyes, JJ., concur.
||| (Castro-Justo v. Galing, A.C. No. 6174, [November 16, 2011], 676 PHIL 139-146)