Ruby v.

Bayot
A.C No. 10558, February 23, 2015

Facts:

The complainant alleged that he and his mother, Ruby, engaged the
services of the respondents in connection with a case for cancellation and
nullification of deeds of donation. Pursuant to the retainer agreement, the
complainant would pay Atty. Espejo the amount of Php 100,000.00 as acceptance
fee. The complainant and Felicitas likewise agreed to pay the amount of Php
4,000 as appearance fee for every hearing.

The complainant gave Atty. Espejo the amount of Php 50,000.00 as

payment for filing fee. However, the actual filing fee that was paid by her only
amounted to Php 7,561.00; she failed to account for the excess amount given her.
On October 2009, Atty. Espejo called the complainany informing him of the need
to file a separate petition for the issuance of a TRO. She allegedly asked for Php
50,000.00 to be used as representation fee.

On October 2009, the complainant deposited the amount of Php4,000 to

the bank account of Atty. Bayot as appearance fee for the hearing on the motion
to serve summons through publications, however, Atty. Bayot allegedly did not
appear in court. Thereafter, the complainant alleged, the respondents failed to
update him as to the status of his complaint. He further claimed that Bayot had
suddenly denied that he was their counsel. Atty. Bayot asserted that it was Atty.
Espejo alone who was the counsel of the complainant and that he was merely a
collaborating counsel.

ISSUE:
Whether or not a lawyer-client relationship exists between Atty. Bayot and
the complainant.

RULING:
Yes, it is undisputed that Atty. Espejo was the counsel of record in the case
that was filed in the RTC. Equally undisputed is the fact that it was only Atty.
Espejo who signed the retainer agreement. However, the evidence on record,
including Atty. Bayot’s admissions, points to the conclusion that a lawyer-client
relationship existed between him and the complainant. Atty. Bayot was the one
who prepared the complaint that was filed with the RTC. He was likewise the one
who prepared the motion to serve summons through publication. He likewise
appeared as counsel for the complainant in the hearings of the case before the
RTC. He likewise advised the complainant about the status of the case. More
importantly, Atty. Bayot admitted he received money which is part of the
acceptance fee.

The foregoing circumstances clearly established that a lawyer-client

relationship existed between Atty. Bayot and the complainant. “Documentary
formalism is not an essential element in the employement of an attorney; the
contract may be express or implied. To establish the relation, it is sufficient that
the advice and assistance of an attorney is sought and received in any matter
pertinent to his profession.” Further, acceptance of money from client establishes
an attorney-client relationship.

Accordingly, Atty. Bayot owes fidelity to the cause of the complainant and is
obliged to keep the latter informed of the status of his case. He is likewise bound
to account for all money or property collected or received from the complainant.
He may be held administratively liable for any inaptitude he may have had
committed in his dealing with the complainant.

Campugan v. Caluya
A.C. No. 8261/8725, March 11, 2015

FACTS:
In this consolidated administrative case, complainants Jessie T. Campugan
and Robert C. Torres seek the disbarment of respondents Atty. Federico S.
Tolentino, Jr., Atty. Daniel F. Victorio, Jr., Atty. Renato G. Cunanan, Atty. Elbert T.
Quilala and Atty. Constante P. Caluya, Jr. for allegedly falsifying a court order that
became the basis for the cancellation of their annotation of the notice of adverse
claim and the notice of lis pendens in the Registry of Deeds in Quezon City.
 Atty. Victorio, Jr. had replaced Atty. Edgardo Abad as counsel of the
complainants in a civil action they brought to seek the annulment of Transfer
Certificate of Title (TCT) No. N-290546 of the Registry of Deeds of Quezon City in
the first week of January 2007 in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Quezon City
(Civil Case No. Q-07-59598).
Atty. Tolentino, Jr. was the counsel of defendant Ramon and Josefina
[Link] complainants narrated that as the surviving children of the late
Spouses Antonio and Nemesia Torres, they inherited upon the deaths of their
parents a... residential lot located at No. 251 Boni Serrano Street, Murphy, Cubao,
Quezon City registered under Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. RT-
64333(35652) of the Register of Deeds of Quezon City. That on August 24, 2006,
they discovered that TCT No. RT-64333(35652) had been unlawfully cancelled and
replaced by TCT No. N-290546 of the Register of Deeds of Quezon City under the
names of Ramon and Josefina Ricafort; and that, accordingly, they immediately
caused the annotation of their affidavit of adverse claim on TCT No. N-290546.
It appears that the parties entered into an amicable settlement during the
pendency of Civil Case No. Q-07-59598 in order to end their dispute, whereby the
complainants agreed to sell the property and the proceeds thereof would be
equally divided between the parties, and the complaint and counterclaim would
be withdrawn respectively by the complainants (as the plaintiffs) and the
defendants. Pursuant to the terms of the amicable settlement, Atty. Victorio, Jr.
filed a Motion to Withdraw Complaint which the RTC granted in its order.
The complainants alleged that from the time of the issuance by the RTC of
the order they could no longer locate or contact Atty. Victorio, Jr. despite making
several phone calls and visits to his office that they found out that new
annotations were made on TCT No. N-290546.
The annotation of the letter-request appearing to be filed by Atty.
Tolentino, Jr. seeking the cancellation of the affidavit of adverse claim and the
notice of lis pendens annotated on TCT No. N-290546 and the anotation of the
decision dated May 16, 2008 rendered in Civil Case No. Q-07-59598 by the RTC,
Branch 95, in Quezon City, granting the complainants' Motion to Withdraw
Complaint.
Unable to receive any response or assistance from Atty. Victorio, Jr. despite
their having paid him for his professional services, the complainants felt that said
counsel had abandoned their case. They submitted that the cancellation of their
notice of adverse claim and their notice of lis pendens without a court order
specifically allowing such cancellation resulted from the connivance and
conspiracy between Atty. Victorio, Jr. and Atty. Tolentino, Jr., and from the taking
advantage of their positions as officials in the Registry of Deeds by respondents
Atty. Quilala, the Chief Registrar, and Atty. Cunanan, the acting Registrar and
signatory of the new annotations. Thus, they claimed to be thereby prejudiced.

Issues:
Whether or not Atty. Victorio is guilty of abandonment and should be disbarred.

Ruling:
The complaints for disbarment was dismissed for being bereft of merit.
Well entrenched in this jurisdiction is the rule that a lawyer may be disciplined for
misconduct committed either in his professional or private capacity. The test is
whether his conduct shows him to be wanting in moral character, honesty,
probity, and good demeanor, or whether his conduct renders him unworthy to
continue as an officer of the Court. Verily, Canon 7 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility mandates all lawyers to uphold at all times the dignity and integrity
of the Legal Profession. Lawyers are similarly required under Rule 1.01, Canon 1
of the same Code not to engage in any unlawful, dishonest and immoral or
deceitful conduct. Failure to observe these tenets of the Code of Professional
Responsibility exposes the lawyer to disciplinary sanctions as provided in Section
27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, as amended, viz.:
Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court, grounds therefor.
— A member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney
by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in
such office, grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime
involving moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is required to
take before the admission to practice, or for a willful disobedience appearing as
an attorney for a party to a case without authority to do so. The practice of
soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid
agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice.
The complainants' allegations of the respondents' acts and omissions are
insufficient to establish any censurable conduct against them.
In view of the foregoing, we find no abuse of authority or irregularity committed
by Atty. Quilala, Atty. Cunanan, and Atty. Caluya, Jr. with respect to the
cancellation of the notice of adverse claim and the notice of lis pendens
annotated on TCT No. N-290546. Whether or not the RTC order dated May 16,
2008 or the letter-request dated June 30, 2008 had been falsified, fraudulent or
invalid was not for them to determine inasmuch as their duty to examine
documents presented for registration was limited only to what appears on the
face of the documents. If, upon their evaluation of the letter-request and the RTC
order, they found the same to be sufficient in law and t]o be in conformity with
existing requirements, it became obligatory for them to perform their ministerial
duty without unnecessary delay.
The complainants charge Atty. Victorio, Jr. and Atty. Tolentino, Jr. with having
conspired with each other to guarantee that the parties in Civil Case No. Q-59598
would enter into the amicable settlement, and then to cause the cancellation of
the affidavit of adverse claim and notice of lis pendens annotated on TCT No. N-
290546. The complainants further fault Atty. Victorio, Jr. with having abandoned
their cause since the issuance of the RTC of its order dated May 16, 2008.
The complainants' charges are devoid of substance.
Although it is not necessary to prove a formal agreement in order to establish
conspiracy because conspiracy may be inferred from the circumstances attending
the commission of an act, it is nonetheless essential that conspiracy be
established by clear and convincing evidence. The complainants failed in this
regard. Outside of their bare assertions that Atty. Victorio, Jr. and Atty. Tolentino,
Jr. had conspired with each other in order to cause the dismissal of the complaint
and then discharge of the annotations, they presented no evidence to support
their allegation of conspiracy. On the contrary, the records indicated their own
active pjarticipation in arriving at the amicable settlement with the defendants in
Civil Case No. Q-07-59598. Hence, they could not now turn their backs on the
amicable settlement that they had themselves entered into.
Even assuming that Atty. Victorio, Jr. and Atty. Tolentino, Jr. initiated and
participated in the settlement of the case, there was nothing wrong in their doing
so. It was actually their obligation as lawyers to do so, pursuant to Rule 1.04,
Canon 1 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, viz.:
RULE 1.04 - A lawyer shall encourage his clients to avoid, end or settle a
controversy if it will admit of a fair settlement.
In fine, the presumption of the validity of the amicable settlement of the
complainants and the defendants in Civil Case No. Q-07-59598 subsisted.
Anent the complainants' charge of abandonment against Atty. Victorio, Jr., Rule
18.03 and Rule 18.04, Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility are
applicable, to wit:
CANON 18 - A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence.
Rule 18.03 - A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his
negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.
Rule 18.04 - A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his case and
shall respond within a reasonable time to the client's request for information.
There is no issue that the complainants engaged the services of Atty. Victorio, Jr.
as their counsel in Civil Case No. Q-07-59598. Atty. Victorio, Jr. served as such
counsel. With Atty. Victorio, Jr. assistance, the complainants obtained a fair
settlement consisting in receiving... half of the proceeds of the sale of the
property in litis, without any portion of the proceeds accruing to counsel as his
legal fees. The complainants did not competently and persuasively show any
unfaithfulness on the part of Atty. Victorio, Jr. as far as their interest in the
litigation was concerned. Hence, Atty. Victorio, Jr. was not liable for
abandonment.

Aninon v. Sabitsana
A.C. No. 5098, April 11, 2012

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 parcel of land owned by her late
common-law husband Brigido Caneja, Jr.. Respondent allegedly violated her
confidence when he subsequently filed a civil case against her for the annulment
of the Deed of Sale in behalf of Zenaida L. Cañete, the legal wife of Brigido Caneja,
Jr. The complainant accused Respondent of using the confidential information he
obtained from her in filing the civil case.

Issue:

Whether Respondent is guilty of misconduct for representing conflicting

interests.

Held:

Yes, the court agree with the findings and recommendations of the IBP
Commissioner and the IBP Board of Governors. The relationship between a lawyer
and his/her client should ideally be imbued with the highest level of trust and
confidence. This is the standard of confidentiality that must prevail to promote a
full disclosure of the client’s most confidential information to his/her lawyer for
an unhampered exchange of information between them. Needless to state, 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  which a lawyer shall not represent
conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned given after a full
disclosure of the facts. “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.” The prohibition also applies even if 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.” 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.” Jurisprudence has provided three tests in
determining whether a violation of the above rule is present in a given case.  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. 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. 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
Respondent’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. The records show that upon the legal advice of
Respondent, the Deed of Sale over the property was prepared and executed in
the complainant’s favor.

Two Respondent met with Zenaida Cañete to discuss the latter’s legal interest
over the property subject of the Deed of Sale. At that point, Respondent 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,
Respondent accepted the engagement from Zenaida Cañete.

Four, Respondent’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.

Lee v. Simando
A.C. No. 9537, June 10, 2013

Doctrine: 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.

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. 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.

Facts:
Atty. Simando was the retained counsel of complainant Dr. Lee from
November 2004 until January 8, 2008, with a monthly retainer fee of Php
3,000.00

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 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

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.
Respondent acted as co-maker with Mejorado in 5 different cash loans amounting
to Php 1,400,000.

When the said obligation became due, 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!"

Despite complainant's repeated requests, respondent ignored her and

failed to bring legal actions against Mejorado. Thus, complainant was forced to
terminate her contract with Atty. Simando.

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.
 Atty. Simando also insisted that he did not violate their lawyerclient
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.

Issue:
Whether respondent is guilty of representing conflicting interest

Held:
Yes. 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;

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 double-dealing.
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 co-maker.

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.

Samson v. Era
A.C. No. 6664, Jul 15, 2013

FACTS:
The complainant and his relatives were among the investors who fell prey
to the pyramiding scam perpetrated by ICS Corporation led by Emilia Sison and
several others. They engaged the services of Atty. Era to represent and assist him
and his relatives in the prosecution of criminal case against Sison and her group.
Pursuant to the engagement, Atty. Era prepared the demand letter demanding
the return or refund of the money subject of their complaints. He also prepared
the complaint-affidavit that Samson signed and swore to and subsequently
presented to the office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City (OCPQC). After the
preliminary investigation, the OCPQC formally charged Sison and the others with
several counts of estafa in the RTC.
In April 2003, Atty. Era called a meeting with Samson and his relatives to
discuss the possibility of an amicable settlement with Sison and her cohorts. He
told Samson and the others that undergoing a trial of the cases would just be a
waste of time, money and effort for them, and that they could settle the cases
with Sison and her group, with him guaranteeing the turnover to them of a
certain property located in Antipolo City belonging to ICS Corporation in e0change
for their desistance. They acceded and executed the affidavit of desistance he
prepared, and in turn they received a deed of assignment covering land registered
under Transfer Certificate of Title No. R-4475 executed by Sison in behalf of ICS
Corporation.

After an amicable settlement and several negotiations with Sison and her cohorts,
Atty. Era expressed that he already accomplished his professional responsibility
towards Samson. They also later found out that they could not liquidate the
property subject to the amicable settlement. During the hearings, Atty. Era did
not anymore appear for Samson and his group. They found out that Atty. Era had
already been entering his appearance as the counsel for Sison in her other
criminal cases involving the same pyramiding scam.
Samson, executed an affidavit alleging the foregoing antecedents and prayed for
Atty. Era’s disbarment on the ground of his violation of the trust, confidence and
respect reposed in him as their counsel. Atty. Era was required to file his
Comment. After several extensions, Atty. Era finally filed his Comment in the OBC.
He alleged that the lawyer-client relationship ended into the compromise
settlement.
IBP Recommendation: the investigating commissioner found Atty. Era guilty of
misconduct for representing conflicting interests, failing to serve his client with
competence and diligence and champion the latter’s cause with wholehearted
fidelity, care and devotion- suspended from the practice of law for 6 months.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Era violated the Code of Professional Responsibility on
conflict of interests.

Ruling:
 Yes. The Supreme affirmed the findings of the IBP. The lawyer-client
relationship did not terminate when the parties entered into a compromise
settlement, for the fact remained that he still needed to oversee the
implementation of the settlement as well as to proceed with the criminal cases
until they were dismissed or otherwise concluded by the trial court. It is also
relevant to indicate that the execution of a compromise settlement in the criminal
cases did not ipso facto cause the termination of the cases not only because the
approval of the compromise by the trial court was still required, but also because
the compromise would have applied only to the civil aspect, and excluded the
criminal aspect pursuant to Article 2034 of the Civil Code.
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.

Atty. Era thus owed to Samson and his group entire devotion to their genuine
interest, and warm zeal in the maintenance and defense of their rights. He was
expected to exert his best efforts and ability to preserve the clients cause, for the
unwavering loyalty displayed to his clients likewise served the ends of justice.
Contrary to Atty. Era’s ill-conceived attempt to explain his disloyalty to Samson
and his group, the termination of the attorney-client relationship does not justify
a lawyer to represent an interest adverse to or in conflict with that of the former
client. The spirit behind this rule is that the client’s confidence once given should
not be stripped by the mere expiration of the professional employment. Even
after the severance of the relation, a lawyer should not do anything that will
injuriously affect his former client in any matter in which the lawyer previously
represented the client. Nor should the lawyer disclose or use any of the client’s
confidences acquired in the previous relation. In this regard, Canon 83 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility e0pressly declares that; “A lawyer owes
fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be mindful of the trust and
confidence reposed in him.”
The lawyer’s highest and most unquestioned duty is to protect the client at all
hazards and costs even to himself. The protection given to the client is perpetual
and does not cease with the termination of the litigation, nor is it affected by the
client’s ceasing to employ the attorney and retaining another, or by any other
change of relation between them. It even survives the death of the client.
In the absence of the express consent from Samson and his group after full
disclosure to them of the conflict of interest, therefore, the most ethical thing for
Atty. Era to have done was either to outrightly decline representing and entering
his appearance as counsel for Sison, or to advice Sison to engage another lawyer
for herself. Unfortunately, he did neither, and should now suffer the proper
sanction.
WHEREFORE, the Court finds and pronounces Atty. Era guilty of violating Rule
15.03 of Canon 15, and Canon 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility; and
SUSPENDS him from the practice of law for two years effective upon his receipt of
this decision, with a warning that his commission of a similar offense will be dealt
with more severely.

Jimenez v. Francisco
A.C. No. 10548, Dec. 10, 2014

Facts:

Atty. Edgar Francisco was the legal counsel of Mark Jimenez. What
happened was Mark Jimenez fi led a c o m p l a i n t f o r e s t a f a a g a i n s t
C a r o l i n e J i m e n e z (complainant) and several others. Jimenez alleged that he
was the true and beneficial owner of the shares of stock in Clarion Realty
and Development Corporation, which was incorporated specifically for the
purpose of purchasing a residential house located in Forbes Park, Makati. In
order to achieve its purpose of purchasing the Forbes property, Clarion
simulated a loan from the c o m p l a i n a n t i n t h e a m o u n t o f
P 8 0 , 7 5 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 . Thereafter, Clarion purchased the Forbes property in
t h e a m o u n t o f P 1 1 7 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 f r o m G e r a r d o Contreras. To
effect the sale, Myla handed a check in the said amount which was funded
entirely by Jimenez. The sale, however, was undervalued.

In the deed of sale, it was made to appear that the Forbes property
was purchased for P78,000,000.00 only. Further, the money used as the
purchase price was not reflected in the books of Clarion. C ar o l in e
( co m p la in an t ) wa s s h o ck e d w it h t h e complaint. More so, she felt
betrayed by Atty. Francisco who helped Jimenez filed the estafa case. So,
Caroline filed a complaint against Atty. Francisco for multiple violati ons of
the Code of Professional responsibility b e f o r e t h e C o m m i s s i o n o n B a r
D i s c i p l i n e ( C B D ) . Caroline claimed that Atty. F represented conflicting
interests. According to her, she usually conferred with Att y. Francisco
regarding the legal implicati ons of Clarion’s transactions. More
significantly, the principal documents relative to the sale and transfer of
Clarion’s pr oper ty were all prep ared and draft ed by Att y. Francisco or
the members of his law office. In his defense, Atty. Francisco denied that he was
ever the personal lawyer of Caroline. He admitted that he acted a s l e g a l
c o u n s e l o f C l a r i o n , b u t t h e n a g a i n , t h e corporati on has a
personality separate from that of Caroline. He also said that he helped
Caroline under the impression that it was what Jimenez would have
wanted. The CBD sided with Caroline and recommended that Atty. Francisco be
suspended from the practice of law for one year. This was upheld by the IBP.

Issue:
Whether or not Atty. F was guilty of violations of the CPR.

Ruling:
Yes, While the Court finds no violation of the rule on conflict of interests and
disclosure of privileged communication, the acts of Atty. Francisco, in actively and
passively allowing Clarion to make untruthful representations to the SEC and in
other public documents, still constitute malpractice and gross misconduct in his
office as attorney, for which a suspension from the practice of law for six (6)
months is warranted. Atty. Francisco could have prevented his entanglement with
this fiasco among the members of Jimenez’s family by taking an upfront and
candid stance in dealing with Jimenez’s children and complainant. He could have
been staunch in reminding the latter that his tasks were performed in his capacity
as legal counsel for Clarion and Jimenez. Be that as it may, Atty. Francisco’s
indiscretion does not detract the Court from finding that the totality of evidence
presented by the complainant miserably failed to discharge the burden of proving
that Atty. Francisco was her lawyer. At most, he served as the legal counsel of
Clarion and, based on the affirmation presented, of Jimenez. Suffice it to say,
complainant failed to establish that Atty. Francisco committed a violation of the
rule on conflict of interests.

Canon 1 and Rule 1.0 was violated, but he was not guilty of representing
conflicting interests.
C A N O N 1 – A L A W Y E R S H A L L U P H O L D T H E CONSTITUTION,
OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND ANDPROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW AND LEGAL
[Link] 1.0 – A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest,
immoral or deceitful [Link] the facts obtaining in this case, Atty.
Franciscoclearly violated the canons and his sworn duty. He isguilty of
engaging in dishonest and deceitful conductwhen he admitt ed to having
allowed his corporateclient, Clarion, to actively misrepresent to the SEC,
thesignificant matters regarding its corporate purpose andsubsequently, its
corporate shareholdings.

Diongzon v. Mirano
A.C. No. 2404, Aug. 17, 2016

Facts:
Atty. Mirano was alleged of conflict of interest. He was the retained counsel
of the petitioner for legal services that covered legal representation in cases and
transactions involving the fishing business of the latter. Atty. Romeo Flora, the
associate of the respondent in his law office was the legal counsel of Gonzales. It
appears that the bond they filed to justify the manual delivery of the boats
subject of the suit had been notarially acknowledged before the respondent
without the knowledge and prior consent of the complainant; and that the
respondent eventually entered his appearance as the counsel for the Gonzaleses
against the respondent.

Issue:
Whether or not the lawyer has violated the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Ruling:
Yes, the court ruled for the suspension of Atty. Mirano for one year. The lawyer-
client relationship between the parties was duly established. The respondent’s
claim that he returned the retainer fee did not alter the juridical existence of their
lawyer-client relationship. There was a violation of Canon 15 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility enjoins lawyers to observe candor, fairness and loyalty
in all their dealings and transactions with their clients.

Justo v. Galing
A.C. No. 6174, Nov. 16, 2011

Facts:

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. Respondent 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. On 27 July 2003, she received a copy of a Motion for Consolidation 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.

In his Comment, 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.
Año.
ISSUE:

Whether or not Atty. Galing is guilty of representing conflicting interest.

Ruling:

Yes, 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. 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.

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.

Sabitsana v. Muertegui,
G.R. No. 181359, Aug. 5, 2013

Facts:

Garcia executed an unnotarized Deed of Sale in favor of respondent Juanito

Muertegui (Juanito) over a 7,500-square meter parcel of unregistered land.
Juanito's father Domingo Muertegui, Sr. (Domingo Sr.) and brother Domingo Jr.
took actual possession of the lot and planted thereon coconut and ipil-ipil trees.
In 1991, Garcia sold the lot to the Muertegui family lawyer, petitioner Atty.
Clemencio C. Sabitsana, Jr. (Atty. Sabitsana), through a notarized deed of absolute
sale. When Domingo Sr. passed away, his heirs applied for registration and
coverage of the lot under the Public Land Act or Commonwealth Act No. 141.
Atty. Sabitsana opposed the application, claiming that he was the true owner of
the lot. Juanito, through his attorney-in-fact Domingo Jr., filed Civil Case No. B-
1097[12] for quieting of title and preliminary injunction, against herein petitioners
Atty. Sabitsana and his wife, Rosario insisted that the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Naval, Biliran did not have jurisdiction over the case, which involved title to or
interest in a parcel of land the assessed value of which is merely P1,230.00.
The trial court held that petitioners are not buyers in good faith. The CA, through
its questioned January 25, 2007 Decision, denied the appeal and affirmed the trial
court's Decision in toto.
Issues:
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT THE REGIONAL TRIAL
COURT DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION OVER THE CASE IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT
THE ASSESSED VALUE OF THE SUBJECT LAND WAS ONLY P1,230.00 (AND STATED
MARKET VALUE OF ONLY P3,450.00).

Ruling:
The Regional Trial Court has jurisdiction over the suit for quieting of title. On the
question of jurisdiction, it is clear under the Rules that an action for quieting of
title may be instituted in the RTCs, regardless of the assessed value of the real
property in dispute. Under Rule 63 of the Rules of Court, an action to quiet title to
real property or remove clouds therefrom may be brought in the appropriate RTC.
It must be remembered that the suit for quieting of title was prompted by
petitioners' August 24, 1998 letter-opposition to respondent's application for
registration. Thus, in order to prevent[30] a cloud from being cast upon his
application for a title, respondent filed Civil Case No. B-1097 to obtain a
declaration of his rights. In this sense, the action is one for declaratory relief,
which properly falls within the jurisdiction of the RTC pursuant to Rule 63 of the
Rules.
The sale to respondent Juanito was executed on September 2, 1981 via an
unnotarized deed of sale, while the sale to petitioners was made via a notarized
document only on October 17, 1991, or ten years thereafter. Thus, Juanito who
was the first buyer has a better... right to the lot, while the subsequent sale to
petitioners is null and void, because when it was made, the seller Garcia was no
longer the owner of the lot. Nemo dat quod non habet.
The fact that the sale to Juanito was not notarized does not alter anything, since
the sale between him and Garcia remains valid nonetheless. Notarization, or the
requirement of a public document under the Civil Code, is only for convenience,
and not for validity or enforceability.[34] And because it remained valid as
between Juanito and Garcia, the latter no longer had the right to sell the lot to
petitioners, for his ownership thereof had ceased.
Nor can petitioners' registration of their purchase have any effect on Juanito's
rights. The mere registration of a sale in one's favor does not give him any right
over the land if the vendor was no longer the owner of the land, having previously
sold the same to another even if the earlier sale was unrecorded. Neither could it
validate the purchase thereof by petitioners, which is null and void. Registration
does not vest title; it is merely the evidence of such title. Our land registration
laws do not give the holder any better title than what he actually has.

Daging v. Davis
A.C. No. 9395, Nov. 12, 2014

Facts:
This administrative complaint for disbarment arose from an Affidavit Complaint1
filed by Daria O. Daging (complainant) before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
(IBP), Benguet Chapter,2 against Atty. Riz Tingalon L. Davis (respondent).

Complainant was the owner and operator of Nashville Country Music Lounge. She
leased it from Benjie Pinlac (Pinlac).

Meanwhile, complainant received a Retainer Proposal from Davis & Sabling Law
Office signed by respondent and his partner Atty. Amos Saganib Sabling (Atty.
Sabling) and eventually resulted in the signing by the complainant.

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 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
In his Comment, 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.

The Investigating Commissioner rendered a Report and Recommendation 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 o flaw for a period of one year.

Issue: WON respondent violated the Canon upon appearing as lawyer in the
ejectment case?

 Held:
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." 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. In Quiambao v. Atty. Bamba, 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.

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
information obtained by his law firm by virtue of the Retainer Agreement. We are
not impressed. 

In Hilado v. David, reiterated in Gonzales v. Atty. Cabucana, Jr.,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.

Anglo v. Valencia
A.C. No. 10567, Feb. 25, 2015
Facts:
Complainant alleged that he availed the services of the law firm of the
respondents for labor cases. Atty. Dionela, a partner of the law firm, was assigned
to represent the complainant. The labor cases were terminated upon the
agreement of both parties. A criminal case for qualified theft was filed against the
complainant and his wife by FEVE Farms, represented by the law which handled
the complainant’s labor cases. Aggrieved. Complainant filed disbarment case
against the respondents, alleging that they violated the rule on conflict of
interest.

IBP Commissioner found the respondents to have violated the rule on conflict
of interest and recommended that the respondents be reprimanded.

Issue:
Whether or not the respondents are guilty of representing conflicting interests
in violation of the pertinent provisions of Code of Professional Responsibility
(CPR).

Held:
There is conflict of interest when a lawyer represents inconsistent interests of
two or more opposing parties. The Supreme Court found the respondents guilty
of representing conflicting interests in violation of Rule 15.03, Canon 15 and
Canon 21 of the CPR and are therefore Reprimanded for said violations, with a
Stern Warning that a repetition of the same or similar infraction would be dealt
with more severely. Meanwhile, the case against Atty. Philip Dabao is Dismissed in
view of his death.