DIANA D.

DE GUZMAN
complainant

VS
ATTY. LOURDES I. DE DIOS
respondent
FACTS
The case before the Court is a complaint1 for disbarment
against Atty. Lourdes I. De Dios on the ground of violation of
Canon 15, Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, for representing conflicting interests, and of
Article 1491 Civil Code, for acquiring property in litigation.
Respondent also represented complainant in one case
involving a property of the corporation.

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.

1 Filed on September 4, 1998.

Respondent however averred that since the action
involved a property of the corporation, she
represented complainant to protect the interests of the
corporation, she being its legal counsel.
Complainant also averred that while respondent rose to
become president of the corporation, she lost all her
investments when her delinquent shares were sold by the
corporation in a public auction upon the advise of
respondent.
On October 22, 1999, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
issued a resolution6 finding that the acts of respondent were
not motivated by ill will as she acted in the best interest of her
client, SBHI. The IBP found that complainant failed to present
convincing proof of her attorney-client relationship with
respondent other than the pleadings respondent filed in the
trial court where complainant was one of the parties.
ISSUE
Whether there was attorney client relationship which may
justify holding respondent guilty of representing conflicting
interests.
HELD
 Lawyers must conduct themselves, especially in
their dealings with their clients and the public at large, with
honesty and integrity in a manner beyond reproach.8
We said:
"To say that lawyers must at all times uphold and respect the law is to state the
obvious, but such statement can never be overemphasized. Considering that,
'of all classes and professions, [lawyers are] most sacredly bound to uphold the
law,' it is imperative that they live by the law. Accordingly, lawyers who violate
their oath and engage in deceitful conduct have no place in the legal
profession."9

8 Resurreccion v. Sayson, 300 SCRA 129 [1998].

9 Ibid., citing Ex parte Wall, 107 U.S. 265, cited in
Malcolm, Legal and Judicial Ethics, p. 214.
 Clearly, respondent violated the prohibition
against representing conflicting interests and engaging in
unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.10
As a lawyer, respondent is bound by her oath to
do no falsehood or consent to its commission and to conduct
herself as a lawyer according to the best of her knowledge
and discretion. The lawyer's oath is a source of obligations
and violation thereof is a ground for suspension,
disbarment,11 or other disciplinary action.12 The acts of
respondent Atty. de Dios are clearly in violation of her solemn
oath as a lawyer that this Court will not tolerate.
10 Code of Professional Responsibility, Canon 1, Rule
1.01.
11 Magdaluyo v. Nace, A.C. 3808, February 2, 2000, citing Adez Realty, Inc. v. CA, 215
SCRA 301 (1992); Richards v. Asoy, 152 SCRA 45, 50 (1987); Diaz v. Gerong, 141
SCRA 46, 49 (1986).
12 Magdaluyo v. Nace, A.C., supra, Note 11, citing Reyes v. Gaa, 246 SCRA 64, 67
(1995).
The Court finds respondent. Atty. Lourdes I. de Dios remiss in
her sworn duty to her client, and to the bar. The Court
hereby SUSPENDS her from the practice of law for six (6)
months, with warning that a repetition of the charges will be
dealt with more severely.