VEVERLIE D.

BALAWAN PALE

A.C. No. 9860, September 11, 2013 J SEP!INE L. R LA, "#RNA L. R LA, "AN$EL L. R LA, "AR# AN%EL#N R LA&BELAR%A, "ARJ RIE "ELBA R LA&CALIP, AND 'AREN R LA, Complainants, v.A((#. J SEP! AD R RA" S, Respondent. )*+t,Complainants, except Karen Orola, are the heirs of the late Trinidad who is married to Emilio. Meanwhile, complainant Karen Orola is the daughter of Maricar and one of Antonio's heirs. In the settlement of Trinidad s estate the parties were represented !" the following# $ a% Att". &illa as counsel for and in !ehalf of the 'eirs of Trinidad( $b% Att". A)arraga as counsel for and in !ehalf of 'eirs of Antonio, with respondent as colla!orating counsel( and $c% Att". A*uiliana +rotarlo as counsel for and in !ehalf of Emilio, the initiall" appointed administrator of Trinidad s estate. In the course of the proceedings, the 'eirs of Trinidad and the 'eirs of Antonio mo,ed for the remo,al of Emilio as administrator and, in his stead, sought the appointment of the latter s son, which the -TC granted. .u!se*uentl", respondent filed an Entr" of Appearance as colla!orating counsel for Emilio in the same case and mo,ed for the reconsideration of the -TC Order. /ue to this, complainants filed the instant dis!arment complaint !efore the Integrated +ar of the 0hilippines $I+0%, claiming that he ,iolated# $ a% -ule 12.34 of the Code, as he undertoo5 to represent conflicting interests in the su!6ect case( and $b% .ection 73$e%, -ule 148 of the -ules, as he !reached the trust and confidence reposed upon him !" his clients, the 'eirs of Antonio. Complainants further claimed that while Maricar consented to the withdrawal of respondent s appearance, the same was o!tained onl" after he had alread" entered his appearance for Emilio. In this accord, respondent failed to disclose such fact to all the affected heirs and, as such, was not a!le to o!tain their written consent as re*uired under the -ules. -espondent refuted the charges contending that he ne,er appeared as counsel for the 'eirs of Trinidad or for the 'eirs of Antonio. 'e a,erred that he onl" accommodated Maricar's re*uest to temporaril" appear on her !ehalf and that his appearances were free of charge. 'e also o!tained Maricar s permission for him to withdraw from the case and to represent Emilio. 'e added that he had no 5nowledge that the late Antonio had other heirs and that no information was disclosed to him !" Maricar or their counsel of record at an" instance. 9inall", he clarified that his representation for Emilio in the su!6ect case was more of a mediator, rather than a litigator, and that since no settlement was forged !etween the parties, he formall" withdrew his appearance. In support of his assertions, respondent su!mitted the affida,its of Maricar and Att". A)arraga.

In the -eport and -ecommendation of the I+0, respondent was found guilt" of representing conflicting interests !ut was held that there was no ,iolation of .ection 73, -ule 148 of the -ules as complainants themsel,es admitted that respondent did not ac*uire confidential information from his former client nor did he use against the latter an" 5nowledge o!tained in the course of his pre,ious emplo"ment. Considering that it was respondent's first offense, the imposition of dis!arment is too harsh thus recommended that he !e se,erel" reprimanded. The I+0 +oard of :o,ernors adopted and appro,ed with modification the aforementioned report and imposed against respondent the penalt" of six $;% months suspension from the practice of law. I,,.e<hether or not respondent is guilt" of representing conflicting interests in ,iolation of -ule 12.34 of the Code= R./012>es. -espondent is guilt" of ,iolating -ule 12.34 of the Code !ecause a law"er is prohi!ited from representing new clients whose interests oppose those of a former client in an" manner, whether or not the" are parties in the same action or on totall" unrelated cases. -ule 12.34 of the Code reads# CA?O? 12 @ A AA<>E- .'AAA O+.E-&E CA?/O-, 9AI-?E.. A?/ AO>AAT> I? AAA 'I. /EAAI?:. A?/ T-A?.ACTIO?. <IT' 'I. CAIE?T.. -ule 12.34 B A law"er shall not represent conflicting interests except !" written consent of all concerned gi,en after a full disclosure of the facts. irtua1aw 1i!rar" There is conflict of interest when a law"er represents inconsistent interests of two or more opposing parties. The test is whether or not in !ehalf of one client, it is the law"er's dut" to fight for an issue or claim, !ut it is his dut" to oppose it for the other client. -espondent's 6ustification that no confidential information was rela"ed to him cannot full" exculpate him for the charges against him since the rule on conflict of interests pro,ides an a!solute prohi!ition from representation with respect to opposing parties in the same case. The Court concurs with the I+0 s finding that respondent ,iolated -ule 12.34 of the Code, !ut finds the penalt" of suspension from the practice of law for a period of three $4% months to !e more appropriate ta5ing into consideration the following factors# first, respondent is a first time offender( second, it is undisputed that respondent merel" accommodated Maricar s re*uest out of gratis to temporaril" represent her( third, it is li5ewise undisputed that respondent had no 5nowledge that the late Antonio had an" other heirs aside from Maricar whose consent he actuall" ac*uired, hence, it can !e said that he acted in good faith( and fourth, complainants admit that respondent did not ac*uire confidential information from the 'eirs of Antonio nor did

he use against them an" 5nowledge o!tained in the course of his pre,ious emplo"ment, hence, the said heirs were not in an" manner pre6udiced !" his su!se*uent engagement with Emilio.