You are on page 1of 27

JANA MARIE J.

NAVALES
GROUP 4
THE LAWYER AND THE CLIENT
BENEDICTO HORNILLA and ATTY.
FEDERICO D. RICAFORT, complainants,
vs. ATTY. ERNESTO S. SALUNATIN,
respondent
[A.C. No. 5804, July 1, 2003]

 This is an administrative Complaint filed


by Benedicto Hornilla and Federico D.
Ricafort with the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP) Commission on Bar
Discipline, against respondent Atty.
Ernesto S. Salunat for illegal and
unethical practice and conflict of interest.
Facts:
• Complainants, who are members of the PPSTA, filed an intra-
corporate case against its members of the Board of Directors for
the terms 1992-1995 and 1995-1997 before the Securities and
Exchange Commission, which was docketed as SEC Case No. 05-
97-5657, and a complaint before the Office of the Ombudsman,
docketed as OMB Case No. 0-97-0695, for unlawful spending and
the undervalued sale of real property of the PPSTA.

• Respondent entered his appearance as counsel for the PPSTA Board


members in the said cases. Complainants contend that respondent
was guilty of conflict of interest because he was engaged by the
PPSTA, of which complainants were members, and was being paid
out of its corporate funds where complainants have contributed.
Despite being told by PPSTA members of the said conflict of
interest, respondent refused to withdraw his appearance in the said
cases.
 In his Answer, respondent stressed that he entered his
appearance as counsel for the PPSTA Board Members for
and in behalf of the ASSA Law and Associates. Respondent
claims that it was complainant Atty. Ricafort who
instigated, orchestrated and indiscriminately filed the said
cases against members of the PPSTA and its Board. He
denied that he ensured the victory of the PPSTA Board in
the case he was handling. He merely assured the Board
that the truth will come out and that the case before the
Ombudsman will be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction,
considering that respondents therein are not public
officials, but private employees. The SEC case, respondent
alleged that the same was being handled by the law firm
of Atty. Eduardo de Mesa, and not ASSA.
Issue:

Whether or not respondent was guilty of


violating Rule 15.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility when he
represented the assailed directors of the
corporation of which he is a retained
counsel.
Ruling:

Yes. Respondent Atty. Ernesto Salunat is


found GUILTY of representing conflicting
interests and is ADMONISHED to observe a
higher degree of fidelity in the practice of his
profession. He is further WARNED that a
repetition of the same or similar acts will be
dealt with more severely.
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.

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 lawyers 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.
Where corporate directors have committed a
breach of trust either by their frauds, ultra vires
acts, or negligence, and the corporation is
unable or unwilling to institute suit to remedy
the wrong, a stockholder may sue on behalf of
himself and other stockholders and for the
benefit of the corporation, to bring about a
redress of the wrong done directly to the
corporation and indirectly to the stockholders.
This is what is known as a derivative suit, and
settled is the doctrine that in a derivative suit,
the corporation is the real party in interest while
the stockholder filing suit for the corporations
behalf is only nominal party. The corporation
should be included as a party in the suit.
In the case at bar, the records show that SEC Case
No. 05-97-5657, entitled Philippine Public School
Teachers Assn., Inc., et al. v. 1992-1995 Board of
Directors of the Philippine Public School Teachers
Assn. (PPSTA), et al., was filed by the PPSTA
against its own Board of Directors. Respondent
admits that the ASSA Law Firm, of which he is the
Managing Partner, was the retained counsel of
PPSTA. Yet, he appeared as counsel of record for
the respondent Board of Directors in the said
case. Clearly, respondent was guilty of conflict of
interest when he represented the parties against
whom his other client, the PPSTA, filed suit .
Decision/ Penalty:

The Supreme Court decided that Atty.


Ernesto Salunat is found GUILTY of
representing conflicting interests and
is ADMONISHED to observe a higher
degree of fidelity in the practice of
his profession. He is further WARNED
that a repetition of the same or
similar acts will be dealt with more
severely.
JOSEFINA M. ANION,Complainant versus
ATTY. CLEMENCIO SABITSANA,
JR.,Respondent.
A.C. No. 5098

Problem Area:

This is a disbarment complaint filed by


Josefina M. Anion against Atty. Clemencio
Sabitsana, Jr. who is charged of: (1) violating
the lawyers duty to preserve confidential
information received from his client; and (2)
violating the prohibition on representing
conflicting interests.
Facts:
• In her complaint, Josefina M. Aniñon (complainant)
related that she previously engaged the legal services
of Atty. Sabitsana in the preparation and execution in
her favor of a Deed of Sale over a a parcel of land
owned by her late common-law husband, Brigido
Caneja, Jr.

• Atty. Sabitsana allegedly violated her confidence when


he subsequently filed a civil case against her for the
annulment of the Deed od Sale in behalf of Zenaida L.
Cañete, the legal wife of Brigido Caneja Jr.

• The Complainant accused Atty. Sabitsana of using the


confidential information he obtained from her in filing
the civil case.
• IBP Commissioner Pedro A. Magpayo Jr. found
Atty. Sabitsana administratively liable for
representing conflicting interest.

Issue:
The issue in this case whether Atty.
Sabitsana is guilty of misconduct for
representing conflicting interest.
Ruling:
• Three tests in determining whether a violation of the
above rules is present in a given case.

• One test is whether a lawyer is duty-bound to fight


an issue or claim in behalf of one client and at the
same time, to oppose that claim for the other client.

• Another test inconsistency of interest 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 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.

On the basis of the attendant facts of the case, we find


substantial evidence to support Atty. Sabitsana's violation of
the above rule, as established by the following circumstances
on record:

One, his legal services were initially engaged by the


complainant to protect her interest over a certain property.

Two, Atty. Sabitsana met with Zenaida Cañete to discuss the


latter's legal interest over the property subject of the Deed of
Sale. At that point, Atty. Sabitsana already had knowledge
that Zenaida Cañete's interest clashed with the complainant's
interests.
• Three, despite the knowledge of the clashing interests between
his two clients, Atty. Sabitsana accepted the engagement from
Zenaida Cañete.

• Four, Atty. Sabitsana's actual knowledge of the conflicting


interests between his two clients was demonstrated by his own
actions: first, he filed a case against the complainant in behalf of
Zenaida Cañete; second, he impleaded the complainant as the
defendant in the case; and third, the case he filed was for the
annulment of the Deed of Sale that he had previously prepared
and executed for the complainant.

• By his acts, not only did Atty. Sabitsana agree to represent one
client against another client in the same action; he also accepted
a new engagement that entailed him to contend and oppose the
interest of his other client in a property in which his legal
services had been previously retained.
• By his acts, not only did Atty. Sabitsana agree to
represent one client against another client in the same
action; he also accepted a new engagement that entailed
him to contend and oppose the interest of his other client
in a property in which his legal services had been
previously retained.

• The records likewise show that although Atty. Sabitsana


wrote a letter to the complainant informing her of
Zenaida Cañete's adverse claim to the property covered
by the Deed of Sale and, urging her to settle the adverse
claim; Atty. Sabitsana however did not disclose to the
complainant that he was also being engaged as counsel
by Zenaida Cañete. Moreover, the records show that
Atty. Sabitsana failed to obtain the written consent of his
two clients, as required by Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility
Decision/Penalty:

The Supreme Court resolves to ADOPT the


findings and recommendations of the
Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines. Atty. Clemencio C.
Sabitsana, Jr. is found GUILTY of misconduct for
representing... conflicting interests in violation of
Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. He is hereby SUSPENDED for one
(1) year from the practice of law.
Principles:
A client can only entrust confidential information to his/her
lawyer based on an expectation from the lawyer of utmost secrecy
and discretion; the lawyer, for his part, is duty-bound to observe
candor,... fairness and loyalty in all dealings and transactions with
the client.Part of the lawyer's duty in this regard is to avoid
representing conflicting interests, a matter covered by Rule 15.03,
Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility... quoted
below:

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.

To be held accountable under this rule, 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.
CELINA F. ANDRADA, Complainant, v. ATTY.
RODRIGO CERA, Respondent
A.C. No. 10187
July 22, 2015

Problem Area:

This administrative case stemmed from an


affidavit-complaint filed by Celina F. Andrada
(complainant) against Atty. Rodrigo Cera
(respondent) for allegedly engaging in unlawful,
dishonest, immoral, and deceitful conduct in
violation of the Lawyer's Code of Professional
Responsibility (CPR)
Facts:
• The complainant hired the respondent to represent her in
an annulment of marriage case pending before the RTC. In
order to file the annulment case, the complainant needed
to submit National Statistics Office (NSO) copies of her
children’s birth certificates – documents which could not be
obtained from the NSO because of her husband’s failure to
completely accomplish the certificates resulting in the non-
registration of the births of their two children.

• The complainant gave the respondent money to process


the registration and issuance of her children’s birth
certificates with the NSO. The complainant also gave the
respondent, through a friend, the amount of ₱10,000.00 as
advance payment for the hiring of a psychologist and/or
the conduct of psychologist tests for herself and her
children. The complainant repeatedly asked the respondent
for the NSO receipt, but the latter would always give an
excuse not to turn the receipt over to her. This prompted
the complainant to request confirmation of payment from
the NSO
• She found out that the respondent never paid nor filed applications for
birth certificates. The complainant wrote a demand letter to the respondent
for the surrender of the NSO receipt and the return of the ₱10,000.00.
After the respondent refused to heed the complainant’s demands, the
complainant filed the present administrative complaint against him before
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines-Commission on Bar Discipline (JBP-
CBD). The respondent returned to the complainant the amount of
seventeen thousand two hundred and eighty pesos (₱17,280.00), pursuant
to a compromise agreement that the parties entered into in exchange for
the dismissal of the criminal case for estafa filed by the complainant
against the respondent.

• She found out that the respondent never paid nor filed applications for
birth certificates. The complainant wrote a demand letter to the respondent
for the surrender of the NSO receipt and the return of the ₱10,000.00.
After the respondent refused to heed the complainant’s demands, the
complainant filed the present administrative complaint against him before
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines-Commission on Bar Discipline (JBP-
CBD). The respondent returned to the complainant the amount of
seventeen thousand two hundred and eighty pesos (₱17,280.00), pursuant
to a compromise agreement that the parties entered into in exchange for
the dismissal of the criminal case for estafa filed by the complainant
against the respondent.
Issue:

Whether respondent’s negligence violates his oath


and the Code of Professional Responsibility and that
his restitution of the complainants money cannot
serve to mitigate his administrative?
Ruling:

• Yes, the court sustain the IBP Board of Governors’ findings of


administrative liability, as well as its recommended penalty of
one (1) year suspension from the practice of law. Clearly, these
actions show the respondent’s negligence and lack of zeal in
handling the complainant’s case, for which he should be made
administratively liable. He violated not only Rule 1.01 of Canon
1 of the CPR, which prohibits a lawyer from engaging in
unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct, but also Rule
18.03 of Canon 18 of the same Code, which provides that “a
lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his
negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.
• the respondent failed to live up to his duties as a
lawyer when he unlawfully withheld the complainant’s
money. These omissions confirm the presumption that
the respondent misappropriated the funds of his client,
in violation of Canon 16 of the CPR that holds a lawyer
in trust of all moneys and properties of his client that
may come into his possession.

• The respondent, likewise, violated Rule 16.039 of


Canon 16 (which provides that “a lawyer shall deliver
the funds and property of his client when due or upon
demand”) when he failed to return the complainant’s
money upon demand. We note that it was only after a
year that the respondent, under threat of a criminal
case filed against him, returned the complainant’s
money.
• The respondent’s restitution cannot serve to
mitigate his administrative liability as he returned
the complainant’s money not voluntarily but for
fear of possible criminal liability.

Decision/ Penalty:

Respondent Atty. Rodrigo Cera is hereby


SUSPENDED from the practice of law for ONE (1)
YEAR. He is WARNED that a repetition of the same or
similar act shall be dealt with more severely

You might also like