LEGAL PROFESSION 1

Rule 15.03 – Lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent

PEREZ v DE LA TORRE
March 30, 2006 | J. Ynares-Santiago

Petitioner: Nestor Perez (barangay captain)

Respondent: Atty. Danilo de la Torre

Doctrine: The nature of relationship between lawyer and client is one of trust and confidence of the
highest degree, so it behooves the lawyer (incumbent upon him) not only to keep inviolate the client’s
confidence, but also to avoid the appearance of impropriety and double-dealing. Only then can litigants
be encouraged to entrust their secrets to their lawyers, which is of paramount importance in the
administration of justice.

FACTS
 Perez charged Atty. De La Torre with misconduct or conduct unbecoming a laywer for
representing conflicting interests in a murder case (allegations contained in a letter to CJ Davide)
 Sonny Boy Ilo and Diego Avila (among the suspects for murder and kidnap for ransom) were
apprehended and jailed by police. Respondent Atty. De La Torre went inside the Municipal
Building where the two were being detained and told them that he could secure their freedom if
they signed a prepared extrajudicial confession. Said confession implicated complainant Perez
(barangay captain of Binanuaanan, Calabanga, CamSur)
o HOWEVEVER, said attorney was representing the heird of the murder victim (accused
did not know this at the time)
 Defense: he did not offer legal services but rather the accused sought his assistance
o Avila sought Atty de la Torre’s assistance in drafting an extrajudicial confession. He
advised Avila to inform his parents about his decision, apprised him of his constitutional
rights and of the possibility that he might be used as a state witness
o Ilo also sought his assistance in drafting an extrajudicial confession. He also conferred
with Ilo in the presence of Ilo’s parents and only after he was convinced that Ilo was not
under undue compulsion did he render assistance.
 IBP Investigation report recommended 1 year suspension for violation of Rule 15.03 of the CPR.
IBP Board increased suspension to 2 years.
o Atty. De La Torre admitted that his services as a lawyer were retained by both Avila and
Ilo
o Perez (complainant) was able to prove that while Atty. De La Torre was representing both
accused, he was also representing the interest of the victim’s family as declared by
victim’s daughter, Vicky de Chavez. She also testified that she was present when Atty.
De La Torre met with and advised Avila and Ilo on one occasion  this is proof that he
consciously offered his services to the two accused despite the fact that he was already
representing the victim’s family
o Atty. De La Torre failed to deny facts or offer competent evidence to refute said facts
o No proof that he obtained written consent of both parties after explaining to them the
existing conflict of interest (i.e. full disclosure of facts)

ISSUES + HELD
W/N Atty. De La Torre violated Rule 15.03 – YES
 Conflict of interest: when a lawyer represents inconsistent interests of two or more opposing
parties
o Test: “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.” 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 (Hornilla v. Salunat)
o Other test: if the acceptance of the new retainer will require the attorney to do anything
which will injuriously affect his first client in any matter in which he represents him and

Garen | A2022
9 April 2019
LEGAL PROFESSION 2
Rule 15.03 – Lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent

also whether he will be called upon in his new relation, to use against his first client any
knowledge acquired through their connection.
 Reason for prohibition: public policy and good taste  nature of relationship between lawyer and
client is one of trust and confidence of the highest degree, so it behooves the lawyer (incumbent
upon him) not only to keep inviolate the client’s confidence, but also to avoid the appearance of
impropriety and double-dealing. Only then can litigants be encouraged to entrust their secrets to
their lawyers, which is of paramount importance in the administration of justice
 IN THIS CASE: Defense is that he did not offer services but rather his services were sought in
executing their extrajudicial confessions. Nonetheless, he acceded to their request to act as
counsel after apprising them of their constitutional rights and after being convinced that they were
under no compulsion to give their confession.
o The defense does not exonerate him from the clear violation of Rule 15.03
o Clearly, his representation of opposing clients in the murder case invites suspicion of
double-dealing and infidelity to his clients.
o What is unsettling is that the respondent assisted in the execution by the two accused of
their confessions admitting participation in various serious criminal offenses knowing that
he was the lawyer of the victims. He should have exercised better judgement – it did not
cross his mind to inhibit himself from acting as their counsel.

RULING: SUSPENDED for 3 years with WARNING

SUPERDIGEST ENTRY
Trigger Words: extrajudicial confession for murder and kidnap for ransom, lawyer of murder suspects and
heirs of murder victim
Facts: Lawyer represented both the heirs of a murder victim and the two accused in his case. Lawyer
says he didn’t offer services but rather his services were sought by the accused.
Doctrine: The nature of relationship between lawyer and client is one of trust and confidence of the
highest degree, so it behooves the lawyer (incumbent upon him) not only to keep inviolate the client’s
confidence, but also to avoid the appearance of impropriety and double-dealing. Only then can litigants
be encouraged to entrust their secrets to their lawyers, which is of paramount importance in the
administration of justice.
Ruling: 3 year suspension + warning
Relevant Provisions: CPR Rule 15.03

Garen | A2022
9 April 2019