B.M. No. 2540, September 24, 2013 IN RE: PETITION TO SIGN IN THE ROLL OF TTORNE!S MI"H EL . ME# #O, Petitioner.

We resolve the instant Petition to Sign in the Roll of Attorneys filed by petitioner Michael A. Medado (Medado). Medado graduated from the University of the Philippines same year&s bar e'aminations ith a general ith the degree of !achelor of "a s in #$%$ # and passed the
crala virtuala library

eighted average of ().%. )

*n % May #$(+, he too- the Attorney&s *ath at the Philippine .nternational /onvention /enter (P.//) together the successful bar e'aminees.0 1e !ar *ffice hen he

ith

as scheduled to sign in the Roll of Attorneys on #0 May #$(+, 2 but he failed to do

so on his scheduled date, allegedly because he had misplaced the 3otice to Sign the Roll of Attorneys 4 given by the ent home to his province for a vacation. 5
crala virtuala library

Several years later, Attorneys. .t of the P.//

hile rummaging through his old college files, Medado found the 3otice to Sign the Roll of hat he had signed at the entrance
%
crala virtuala library

as then that he reali6ed that he had not signed in the roll, and that as probably 7ust an attendance record.

!y the time Medado found the notice, he ta'ation or-, and that he

as already

or-ing. 1e stated that he

as mainly doing corporate and as not as urgent, nor as

as not actively involved in litigation practice. 8hus, he operated 9under the mista-en
(

belief :that; since he ha:d; already ta-en the oath, the signing of the Roll of Attorneys and as subse>uently forgotten.<$

crucial to his status as a la yer<= and 9the matter of signing in the Roll of Attorneys lost its urgency and compulsion,
crala virtuala library

.n )++4,

hen Medado attended Mandatory /ontinuing "egal ?ducation (M/"?) seminars, he
#+

as re>uired to provide as

his roll number in order for his M/"? compliances to be credited. 3ot having signed in the Roll of Attorneys, he unable to provide his roll number.

About seven years later, or on 5 @ebruary )+#), Medado filed the instant Petition, praying that he be allo ed to sign in the Roll of Attorneys.##
crala virtuala library

8he *ffice of the !ar /onfidant (*!/) conducted a clarificatory conference on the matter on )# September )+#) #) and submitted a Report and Recommendation to this /ourt on 2 @ebruary )+#0. #0 8he *!/ recommended that the instant petition be denied for petitioner&s gross negligence, gross misconduct and utter lac- of merit. #2 .t e'plained that, based on his ans ers during the clarificatory conference, petitioner could offer no valid 7ustification for his negligence in signing in the Roll of Attorneys.#4 After a 7udicious revie
crala virtuala library

of the records,

e grant Medado&s prayer in the instant petition, sub7ect to the payment of a

fine and the imposition of a penalty e>uivalent to suspension from the practice of la . At the outset, e note that not allo ing Medado to sign in the Roll of Attorneys ould be a-in to imposing upon him

the ultimate penalty of disbarment, a penalty that members of the !ar. .n this case, the records do not sho

e have reserved for the most serious ethical transgressions of

that this action is

arranted.

@or one, petitioner demonstrated good faith and good moral character in the Roll of Attorneys. We note that it rather, it as Medado himself as-ed by the !ar /onfidant you don&t -no necessary.#5 as not a third party

hen he finally filed the instant Petition to Sign

ho called this /ourt&s attention to petitioner&s omission=

ho ac-no ledged his o n lapse, albeit after the passage of more than 0+ years. When
chanroble s virtua#a #ibrary

hy it too- him this long to file the instant petition, Medado very candidly repliedA

Mahirap hong iBe'plain yan pero, yun bang at the time,

hat can you sayC 8a-ot -a -ung anong mangyayari sa Dyo, hat&s

hat&s gonna happen. At the same time, it&s a combination of apprehension and an'iety of

gonna happen. And, finally it&s the right thing to do. . have to come here E sign the roll and ta-e the oath as @or another, petitioner has not been sub7ect to any action for dis>ualification from the practice of la , #% than hat e can say of other individuals ho hich is more

ere successfully admitted as members of the Philippine !ar. @or this

/ourt, this fact demonstrates that petitioner strove to adhere to the strict re>uirements of the ethics of the profession, and that he has prima facie sho n that he possesses the character re>uired to be a member of the Philippine !ar. @inally, Medado appears to have been a competent and able legal practitioner, having held various positions at the "aurel "a *ffice,#( Petron, Petrophil /orporation, the Philippine 3ational *il /ompany, and the ?nergy Fevelopment
crala virtuala library

/orporation.#$

All these demonstrate Medado&s la
)+

orth to become a fullBfledged member of the Philippine !ar. While the practice of ill not un arrantedly ithhold this privilege from individuals ho have ithstand the rigors of the profession.

is not a right but a privilege, this /ourt

sho n mental fitness and moral fiber to 8hat said, ho ever,

e cannot fully e'culpate petitioner Medado from all liability for his years of inaction. since #$(+, a period spanning more than 0+ years, ithout having

Petitioner has been engaged in the practice of la

signed in the Roll of Attorneys.)# 1e 7ustifies this behavior by characteri6ing his acts as 9neither but based on a mista-en belief and an honest error of 7udgment.< )) We disagree.
crala virtuala library

illful nor intentional

While an honest mista-e of fact could be used to e'cuse a person from the legal conse>uences of his acts )0 as it negates malice or evil motive,)2 a mista-e of la presumed to -no the la cannot be utili6ed as a la ful 7ustification, because everyone is and its conse>uences. )4 Ignorantia facti excusat; ignorantia legis neminem excusat . hen

Applying these principles to the case at bar, Medado may have at first operated under an honest mista-e of fact he thought that hat he had signed at the P.// entrance before the oathBta-ing hat he had signed 1o ever, the moment he reali6ed that

as already the Roll of Attorneys. as not a fullB ithout

as merely an attendance record, he could no longer claim as the act of signing

an honest mista-e of fact as a valid 7ustification. At that point, Medado should have -no n that he fledged member of the Philippine !ar because of his failure to sign in the Roll of Attorneys, as it therein that
)5

ould have made him so. When, in spite of this -no ledge, he chose to continue practicing la

ta-ing the necessary steps to complete all the re>uirements for admission to the !ar, he unauthori6ed practice of la . Under the Rules of /ourt, the unauthori6ed practice of la and acting as such

illfully engaged in the

by one&s assuming to be an attorney or officer of the court, hich is punishable by fine or

ithout authority, may constitute indirect contempt of court, )%

imprisonment or both.)( Such a finding, ho ever, is in the nature of criminal contempt )$ and must be reached after the filing of charges and the conduct of hearings. 0+ .n this case, hile it appears >uite clearly that petitioner committed e refrain from ma-ing any finding indirect contempt of court by -no ingly engaging in unauthori6ed practice of la ,

While a reading of /anon $ appears to merely prohibit la yers from assisting in the unauthori6ed practice of la . they are bound to ith the ethical standards of the legal profession. petitioner is NOT of la before he has signed in the Roll of Attorneys . Petitioner Michael A. to the applicable penalty. assist in the unauthori6ed practice of la . Furing the one year period. e see it fit to impose upon him a penalty a-in to suspension by allo ing him to sign in the Roll of e li-e ise see it fit to fine him in the amount of P0). li-e ise OR#ERE# to pay a FINE of P0). @or his transgression of the prohibition against the unauthori6ed practice of la . e cannot suspend him from the practice of la . because at the heart of /anon $ students and !ar candidates. Gno ingly engaging in unauthori6ed practice of la Responsibility. directly or indirectly.of liability for indirect contempt. Medado is LLO$E# to sign in the Roll of Attorneys ONE %1& !E Rafter receipt of this Resolution. Petitioner is LLO$E# to practice la .0# As Medado is not yet a fullBfledged la yer. arned that doing any act ith severely by this /ourt. Furing the one year period. as no formal charge pertaining thereto has been filed against him. hich providesA chanroble s virtua#a #ibrary li-e ise transgresses /anon $ of the /ode of Professional /A3*3 $ H A la yer shall not. 8his duty li-e ise applies to la comport themselves in accordance 8urning no 1o ever. and is sternly $HEREFORE. before he has signed in the Roll of Attorneys ill be dealt Attorneys one (#) year after receipt of this Resolution. arranted the penalty of suspension from is the la yer&s duty to prevent the unauthori6ed practice of la . the unauthori6ed practice of la by the la yer himself is subsumed under this provision. petitioner is that constitutes practice of la arned that he is not allo ed to engage in the practice of la . previous violations of /anon $ have the practice of la . and is STERNL! $ RNE# that doing any act that constitutes practice ill be dealt ith severely by this /ourt.+++ for his unauthori6ed practice of la . the instant Petition to Sign in the Roll of Attorneys is hereby GR NTE#. As aspiring members of the !ar.+++.

Rule #0( of the Rules of /ourt (Rules). and Mar7orie Melba *rolaB/alip (Mar7orie) are the children of the late 8rinidad "asernaB*rola (8rinidad).. (Atty. M N+EL L. v.to represent ?milio in the same case. . the initially appointed administrator of 8rinidad&s estate. in this vein. )++%. respondent refuted the abovementioned charges. and Mar7orie (1eirs of 8rinidad)= (b) Atty. *rola (?milio). as such. respondent failed to disclose such fact to all the affected heirs and. A6arraga) as counsel for and in behalf of Maricar. OROL . /anon #4 (Rule #4. *OSEPH @or the /ourt&s resolution is a disbarment complaint # filed against respondent Atty. L. Subse>uently.n the settlement of 8rinidad&s estate. Mary Angelyn *rolaB!elarga (Mary Angelyn). 1e pointed out that the records of the case readily sho 8rinidad ere represented by Atty. A6arraga. or after he had already entered his appearance for ?milio on *ctober ritten consent as re>uired under the Rules. '()0. sought the appointment of the latter&s son. 2013 *OSEPHINE L.BEL RG . (all surnamed *rola). the 1eirs of 8rinidad and the 1eirs of Antonio moved for the removal of ?milio as administrator and.n this accord. N# . complainants filed the instant disbarment complaint before the . M R*ORIE #OR R MOS. claiming that he violatedA (a) Rule #4. as he undertoo. and the other heirs 2 of the late Antonio (1eirs of Antonio). asserted that no information as disclosed to him by Maricar or their counsel of record at any . pending before the Regional 8rial /ourt of Ro'as /ity.+0) of the /ode of Professional Responsibility (/ode) and Section )+(e).+0. )++%." LIP. Garen. the deceased brother of the aboveBnamed complainants and the son of ?milio. OROL .#) . A>uiliana !rotarlo as counsel for and in behalf of ?milio. 23t.!P). TT!. re1po45e4t /1 0o66/bor/t347 0o841e6= and (c) Atty. *rola (Antonio). Killa) as counsel for and in behalf of Iosephine. OROL .#0 1e added that he had no -no ledge of the fact that the late Antonio had other heirs and.to represent conflicting interests in the sub7ect case=% and (b) Section )+(e). Killa. respondent filed an ?ntry of Appearance as collaborating counsel for ?milio in the same case and moved for the reconsideration of the R8/ *rder. A6arraga. hich the R8/ granted in an *rder 4 dated September )+. M!RN MELB OROL . obtain their @or his part. #+ crala virtuala library #+. Mary Angelyn. married to ?milio J. the 1eirs of Antonio.n the course of the proceedings. Manuel. the ithdra al of respondent&s appearance. Roy M. ( /omplainants further claimed that surviving spouse of Antonio and the mother of Garen.n fact. Respondent. September 11. Myrna. No.$ . T.". 1e averred that he only accommodated MaricarLs re>uest to temporarily appear on her behalf as their counsel of record could not attend the scheduled Iune #5 and Iuly #2. 5 Fue to the respondent&s ne crala virtuala library engagement. complainant Garen *rola (Garen) is the daughter of Maricar AlbaB*rola (Maricar) and Antonio ". Ioseph Ador Ramos (respondent) for his violation of Rule #4. the parties ere represented by the follo ingA ( a) Atty. Manuel. or on *ctober #+. ## that the 1eirs of hile the 1eirs of Antonio ere e'clusively represented by Atty.) crala virtuala library Mean hile.+0 of the /ode. Ir. Killa (Atty. M R! NGEL!N OROL . 0 crala virtuala library . Myrna. contending that he never appeared as counsel for the 1eirs of 8rinidad or for the 1eirs of Antonio. Complainants.REN OROL . ?ly @. )++%. in his stead. Rule #0( of the Rules. as he breached the trust and confidence reposed upon him by his clients. )++5 hearings and that his appearances thereat ere free of charge. he consulted Maricar before he undertoo. )++% (R8/ *rder). KB050$. "i-e ise. consented to the same hile Maricar. the as not able to as obtained only on *ctober #(. !ranch #( (R8/) and doc-eted as Special Proceeding 3o.ntegrated !ar of the Philippines (. Manuel *rola. he obtained Maricar&s permission for him to ithdra from the case as no further communications transpired after these t o hearings.e F/0t1 /omplainants Iosephine.

A6arraga#( relative to his limited appearance and his consultation ?milio.n the Report and Recommendation#$ dated September #4.e "o8rt 8he sole issue in this case is Rule #4. )) crala virtuala library of disbarment too harsh a penalty and. as mandated under Rule #4. finding the same to be fully supported by the evidence on record and the applicable la s and rules but imposed against respondent the penalty of si' (5) months suspension from the practice of la . of the 1eirs of Antonio.e I118e Be9ore t. )+#0.+0 B A la yer shall not represent conflicting interests e'cept by a full disclosure of the facts.!P . clients hose interests hether or not they are parties in the same action or on totally ritten consent of /66 0o40er4e5 given after . respondent nonetheless failed to obtain the consent of Garen.instance.nvestigating /ommissioner). T.*3S W. Ir.+0 of the /ode. he clarified that his representation for ?milio in the sub7ect case than a litigator.e Re0omme45/t3o4 /45 0t3o4 o9 t.R3?SS A3F "*OA"8O . recommended that he be severely reprimanded for his act arning that a repetition of the same or similar acts 8he . NNB)+#0B#% )4 dated Ianuary 0.B)++(B52# dated Fecember ##.. )++( (Resolution 3o.e IBP ith Maricar prior to his engagement as counsel for . Fe "a Rama.nvestigating /ommissioner Iose . NK. NK.#2 @inally...!P&s finding that respondent violated Rule #4. ..nvestigating /ommissioner observed that as found guilty of representing conflicting interests only ithdra al of appearance ho as ith the e'press that he never acted as counsel for the other complainants. Rule #0( of the Rules as complainants themselves admitted that respondent 9did not ac>uire confidential information from his former client nor did he use against the latter any -no ledge obtained in the course of his previous employment. rather ithdre #% as forged bet een the parties. but reduced the hether or not respondent is guilty of representing conflicting interests in violation of recommended period of suspension to three (0) months.nvestigating /ommissioner found the imposition ith ould be dealt ith more severely.+0 of the /ode. @A.n support of his assertions.B)++(B52#).. the .3MS A3F 8RA3SA/8.+0 of the /ode readsA chanroble s virtua#a #ibrary /A3*3 #4 H A "AWO?R S1A"" *!S?RK? /A3F*R. )++%. instead.e "o8rt:1 R86347 8he /ourt concurs ith the .!P Resolution 3o. RespondentLs motion for reconsideration )2 as denied in . Rule #4. (Emphasis supplied) Under the aforeBcited rule.+0 of the /ode.3 A"" 1.S F?A".?38S. respondent submitted the affidavits of Maricar and Atty. (. it is e'plicit that a la yer is prohibited from representing ne oppose those of a former client in any manner.!P !oard of Movernors adopted and approved )0 ith modification the aforementioned report in its Resolution 3o. )++( submitted by . 8he as already of age and one hile respondentLs conformity of Maricar. the . respondent ith respect to Garen as the records of the case sho . and that since no settlement #4 #5 as more of a mediator. T. T. he formally his appearance on Fecember 5.<)#/onsidering that it as respondentLs first offense.S /". Rule #4.nvestigating /ommissioner held that there crala virtuala library as no violation of Section )+.81 1. )+ *n the other hand.

a la yer cannot change his or-ed against the very interest of the 1eirs of Antonio H particularly. even on that assertion. that respondent as remiss in his duty to ma-e a . 0+ Applying the aboveBstated principles. 8hat respondent&s previous appearances for and in behalf of the 1eirs of Antonio faith and as only a friendly accommodation cannot e>ually be given any credence since the aforesaid rule holds even if the inconsistency is remote or merely probable or even if the la yer has acted in good ith no intention to represent conflicting interests. conciliator or arbitrator in settling disputes. . 0# crala virtuala library 3either can respondentLs asseveration that his engagement by ?milio as more of a mediator than a litigator and for the purpose of forging a settlement among the family members render the rule inoperative. ho ever. as enunciated in Hornilla. it must be pointed out that a ho acts as such in settling a dispute cannot represent any of the parties to it. . he clearly the aboveBstated rule. Another test of the inconsistency of interests hether the acceptance of a ne ill 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. . to itA chanrobles virtua#a #ibrary T. 1ence.!P&s finding that respondent represented conflicting interests and. 8he test is 9 hether or not in behalf of one client.unrelated cases. 0) /anon #4 of the /ode similarly re>uires the la yer to obtain the ritten consent of all concerned before he may act as mediator.< 8his rule covers not only cases in confided. the /ourt agrees crala virtuala library ith the .n the course thereof. it is the la yerLs duty to fight for an issue or claim.t behooves la yers not only to -eep inviolate the clientLs confidence. there is conflict of interests if hich ill in7uriously affect his first relation to use ill be called upon in his ne ill re>uire the attorney to perform an act hich he represents him and also relation against his first client any -no ledge ac>uired through their connection. RespondentLs 7ustification that no confidential information from representation as relayed to him cannot fully e'culpate him for the ords. !esides. his conduct is li-e ise improper since Rule #4. be noted that a la yer&s immutable duty to a former client does not cover transactions that occurred beyond the la yer&s employment ith the client. Also.+2. Garen H in violation of charges against him since the rule on conflict of interests.n fact. but it is his duty to oppose it for the other client. this argument hen he argues for the other client. but also to avoid the appearance of treachery and doubleBdealing for only then can litigants be encouraged to entrust their secrets to their la yers.rrefragably. 8he intent of the la is to impose upon the la yer the duty to protect the client&s interests only on matters that he previously handled for the former client and not for matters that arose after the la yerBclient relationship has terminated. hen respondent proceeded to represent ?milio for the purpose of see-ing his reinstatement as administrator in the same case. 8he prohibition is founded on the principles of public policy and good taste. if he argues for one client. 00 Accordingly. the /ourt e'plained the concept of conflict of interest. Records reveal that respondent as the collaborating counsel not only for Maricar as claimed by him. must be held administratively liable therefor.e4 / 6/2. . .er repre1e4t1 340o4131te4t 34tere1t1 o9 t2o or more oppo1347 p/rt3e1. )% )( hich is of paramount importance in the administration of 7ustice. but for all the 1eirs of Antonio in Special Proceeding 3o.t must. KB050$.n brief.)$ (?mphasis supplied= citations omitted) . provides an absolute prohibition ith respect to opposing parties in the same case.n Hornilla v. Garen H and ritten consent before consummating the same. respondent failed in this respect as the records sho e>ually secure their e'press la yer full disclosure of his impending engagement as ?milio&s counsel to all the 1eirs of Antonio H particularly. )5 .n other representation from one party to the latter&s opponent in the same case. the 1eirs of 8rinidad and the 1eirs of Antonio succeeded in removing ?milio as administrator for having committed acts pre7udicial to their interests. for respondent&s . but also those in the acceptance of the ne client in any matter in is hich no confidence has been besto ed or retainer hether he ill be opposed by him hich confidential communications have been ill be used. perforce.ere 31 0o49630t o9 34tere1t 2. Salunat (Hornilla).

hence. 3otably. since the re>uirement that its decision in disciplinary proceedings must state the facts and the reasons on other portion of the ratio. $HEREFORE.B)++(B52#. complainants admit that respondent did not ac>uire confidential information from the 1eirs of Antonio nor did he use against them any -no ledge obtained in the course of his previous employment. )++5 hearings due to her la yer&s unavailability= third. Ir.!P !oard of Movernors& modification= as such. it contravened Section #)(a). Rule #0$B! of the Rules decision of the !oard upon such revie reasons on 02 hich specifically mandates that 9:t. 8he reasons for handing do n a penalty occupy no lesser station than any crala virtuala library . ith $ RNING that a repetition of ill be dealt . ith more severely.nvestigating /ommissioner suspension of si' (5) months by the .. !o"in.violation of the aforestated rules. respondent Atty. as increased from severe reprimand to a ..!P !oard of Movernors of the hich the same is based is a-in to hat is re>uired hich it is based.he ithout shall be in riting and shall clearly and distinctly state the facts and the ith disfavor the change in the recommended penalty ont to remind the .. Ioseph Ador Ramos is hereby held G+ILT! of representing conflicting interests in violation of Rule #4. disciplinary sanction is arranted. 8o this end. /anon #4 of the /ode of Professional Responsibility.05 the /ourt similarly for a period of three months to the counsel therein hose interests are hostile to his other clients in another case. the said heirs pre7udiced by his subse>uent engagement represented parties imposed the penalty of suspension from the practice of la ere not in any manner ho ith ?milio. the /ourt is importance of the re>uirement to announce in plain terms its legal reasoning. Accordingly.< Kerily. the penalty recommended by the .!P !oard of Movernors in its Resolution 3o. it is undisputed that respondent merely accommodated Maricar&s re>uest out of gratis to temporarily represent her only during the Iune #5 and Iuly #2. the /ourt finds the penalty of suspension from the practice of la for a period of three (0) months to be more appropriate ta-ing into consideration the follo ing factorsA first. 1o ever.04 of courts in promulgating their decisions.+0.n the foregoing light. the /ourt observes that the said resolution is bereft of any e'planation sho ing the bases of the .n this case. in Ilusorio. he is hereby S+SPEN#E# from the practice of la the same or similar acts in the future for a period of three (0) months. hence. respondent is a first time offender= second. the /ourt loo-s any ample 7ustification therefor. it is li-e ise undisputed that respondent had no -no ledge that the late Antonio had any other heirs aside from Maricar hose consent he actually ac>uired (albeit shortly after his first appearance as counsel for and in behalf of ?milio). NK. it can be said that he acted in good faith= and fourth.ildner v.

8he respondent li-e ise entered his appearance as counsel for ?strelieta and Manuel in the said case.0 crala virtuala library as still on appeal ith this /ourt at the time hen the as filed. . purchased several real properties in Fumaguete /ity.of the Philippines and. E#+ R#O SE#ILLO. against the complainant= that the complainant supposedly detained Giyoshi and provided him . surreptitiously mortgaged a parcel of land he o ned.ntegrated !ar of the Philippines (.. #0(55. No. a Iapanese citi6en. but the case instant complaint hen Giyoshi terminated his services. against ?strelieta and Manuel. #0(55. ?duardo Sedillo ithA ( #) violating the prohibition on representing conflicting interests= ()) using abusive language against and disrespecting the court= and (0) spreading rumors against a colleague in the legal profession. Giyoshi intervened in /ivil /ase 3o. he stated that he % crala virtuala library hen.". )++(. acting through his representative Fanilo ?stocoming (Fanilo) and Ga6uhiro Sampie (Ga6uhiro). ith the /ommission 8he /ourt resolves the /omplaint # for disbarment filed by Atty. sum of money and attachment as filed by Gimura !usiness /oncepts. Ir.!P) against Atty. 8he spouses Gimura obtained a favorable decision in the trial court.+++. TT!. the respondent had spread rumors ith omen. sometime in @ebruary )++%. an assignee of Giyoshi. during the course of his marriage to ?strelieta. alleging that they ere detaining Giyoshi against his ill. )++%. Complainant# v. 3ui>ue (complainant) (respondent) ho is charged on !ar Fiscipline (/ommission) of the .4++. "ester R. N+I<+E. Giyoshi engaged the services of the complainant.2 8he respondent appeared as counsel of ?strelieta and Manuel. Giyoshi and ?strelieta had a falling out. then pending before the R8/. the /ommission directed the respondent to file his ans er to the /omplaint. !ranch 22. . entitled $elson Patrimonio v.) Since the spouses Gimura had to leave the country. as dismissed after Giyoshi appeared in court and testified that he respondent disrespected the court 9 ould have ta-en the resolution as not detained by Fanilo and Ga6uhiro. %evelopment an" of the Philippines.n . LESTER R.n its *rder( dated @ebruary #4. as security for the said loan. *86. the case as prosecuted by their representative Manuel Patrimonio (Manuel). F/0t8/6 4te0e5e4t1 8he complainant alleged that. ''0). (Amasula). 8he respondent li-e ise assisted ?strelieta in instituting a habeas corpus case against Fanilo and Ga6uhiro. 2'. ho ever. *n @ebruary )). sometime in #$$). after the habeas corpus case as dismissed.nc. in the Regional 8rial /ourt (R8/) of Fumaguete /ity. 8he respondent remained the counsel of record of the spouses Gimura until Iuly )++% Sometime in 3ovember )++5.. Apparently.4@urther. 8he habeas corpus case. the respondent became the la yer of Giyoshi Gimura (Giyoshi). Giyoshi.++ from the Fevelopment !an. ?strelieta&s brother. filed a complaint against ?strelieta and Manuel for falsification. some of hich ere registered under the name of ?strelieta and Manuel.< 8he complainant further alleged that. and his ife ?strelieta PatrimonioBGimura (?strelieta) in a case for collectionPrecovery of overpayment against /arlos Amasula. Respondent. 8he respondent opposed Giyoshi&s motion for intervention in /ivil /ase 3o. Sometime in September )++5. 8he complainant averred that the hich he prepared. Giyoshi. in the motion for reconsideration 5 ith a grain of salt. ?strelieta and Manuel falsified Giyoshi&s signature to ma-e it appear that he loaned P#. 2013 TT!. a civil action for accounting.

)++(. . asserting that it ho sought his legal assistance and not Giyoshi. Manuel. the respondent claims that the same as instituted by Fanilo and Ga6uhiro and not Giyoshi. the .. ith the Fepartment of Iustice and even ith /ivil /ase 3o. the respondent the respondent that his client la . )+#+. through his representative Fanilo ?stocoming and Ga6uhiro Sampie. and ?strelieta. ith respect to the falsification case against ?strelieta and As to the charge of disrespect to the court. )++%B#2+5% as the respondent appeared opposite :Giyoshi. )++(. *n May ). hich hen ?strelieta and Manuel Po er of Attorney. $ the respondent denied that he as Manuel as guilty of representing conflicting interests. e'ecuted his 9Revocation of Special Po er of Attorney and hich found the complaint (. ## crala virtuala library *n Fecember ). 8he defense of as actually Manuel and not :Giyoshi. #) crala virtuala library F3453471 o9 t. and ?strelieta against the building contractor. 1e ere stressed that there has been no personal and active intervention by Giyoshi or of ?strelieta in any of the stages of the case. 8he respondent further denied having spread rumors to malign the complainant. 8hus. Such engagement remained until Iuly 0#. on appeal them (/riminal /ase /B#%+). @urthermore. despite the as still :Giyoshi&s. :Giyoshi. counsel in the Amasula case.his Ans er Amasula ith /ounterclaim.nvestigating /ommissioner absolved the respondent from the charge of disrespect to the court. by appearing as counsel for ?strelieta and hen probable cause as hen the information as filed against as filed by :Giyoshi. hen respondent entered his appearance as counsel for ?strelieta and her brother Manuel in the @alsification as still the counsel of :Giyoshi.e IBP I4=e1t37/t347 "omm3113o4er *n @ebruary $. albeit in representation of the spouses Gimura. in the Amasula case. )++(. 8husA !ased on the complaint and the ans er thereto. )++%B5#). 8he respondent continued to represent ?strelieta and Manuel opposite :Giyoshi. )++% 8ermination of Attorney<. ere sub7ected to preliminary investigation for the @alsification charges ith his duty to :Giyoshi. #+ *nly the respondent appeared during the scheduled mandatory conference. cannot deny that Manuel&s principals. praying that he be allo ed to ithdra the same.nvestigating /ommissioner li-e ise pointed out that no evidence as presented to sho that the respondent had spread rumor to malign the complainant. 8he . the /ommission set the case for mandatory conference on May )%. 8he same situation e'isted fact that he Manuel.nvestigating /ommissioner issued a Report and Recommendation #0 respondent guilty of representing conflicting interests. 8he respondent claims that.S. respondent consciously and deliberately ran in conflict found against his clients. 1e e'plained that the civil case against as actively handled and personally pursued by Manuel. and ?strelieta goes contrary to basic principles of as acting as mere agent of :Giyoshi. #2 (/itation omitted) 8he . /arlos Amasula. and ?strelieta by virtue of a Special ere his hen :Giyoshi. the respondent claims that the phrase 9 ith a grain of salt< is but a common phraseology that is neither offensive nor disrespectful. therefore. asserting that the use of the phrase 9 ith a grain of salt< is not offensive. 8he respondent admitted that Manuel real clients. 8he respondent.< @urther. his client is Manuel and the spouses Gimura merely 9litigationB beneficiariesBinB aiting. for all intents and purposes. this /ommission finds that there is no >uestion that the respondent is the counsel in the case filed by :Giyoshi. 3o. the complainant manifested to the /ommission that he is no longer interested in pursuing his complaint against the respondent.

e. )) crala virtuala library . or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude. F3453471 o9 t. m/6pr/0t30e.8he . 8he respondent sought to reconsider the Resolution dated Iune )%. be 531b/rre5 or 181pe45e5 9rom . finding the same to be fully supported by the evidence on record and the applicable la s and rules. grossly immoral conduct.!P !oard of Movernors denied his motion in its Resolution#% dated Ianuary 0.#$ ith the administration of 7ustice= i.)# Such prohibition is founded on principles of public policy and good taste as the nature of the la yerB client relations is one of trust and confidence of the highest degree. probity or good demeanor. 8he motive behind this conduct is generally a premeditated.er 7ro11 m310o4580t 34 180. constitutes malpractice. R86347 o9 t.+0. for gross misconduct. 5e0e3t. 8he ilful disobedience appearing as an attorney for a party to a case for the purpose of gain. or ot. I118e 8he issue in this case is /omplaint. the /ourt agrees ith the findings and the recommendations of the hether the respondent should be administratively sanctioned based on the allegations in the . or for a practice of soliciting cases at la hich he is re>uired to ta-e before the admission to ithout authority so to do. inter alia. %isbarment or suspension of attorne&s b& Supreme Court# grounds therefore .t is only upon strict compliance ith the condition of full disclosure of facts that a la yer may appear against his client= other ise. /anon #4 of the /ode of Professional Responsibility provides thatA Rule #4. o9930e. t. act as counsel for a person )+ ritten consent of all concerned given after a hose interest ith that of his present or former client. (?mphasis ours) A la yer may be suspended or disbarred for any misconduct sho ing any fault or deficiency in his moral character.e b/r m/. shameful or flagrant unla ful conduct on the part of a person concerned intentional purpose.#( Mross misconduct is any ine'cusable. Q member o9 t. H A la yer shall not represent conflicting interests e'cept by full disclosure of the facts. )%. Rule #0( of the Rules of /ourt provides that a la yer may be disbarred or suspended from the practice of la .31 o9930e /1 /ttor4e..nvestigating /ommissioner. the .e S8preme "o8rt 9or /4.+0.n a 3otice of Resolution#4 dated Iune )%.e "o8rt After a careful perusal of the records. #5 but the . 8husA Sec.e IBP Bo/r5 o9 Go=er4or1 for a period .< . Rule #4.!P !oard of Movernors. b.nvestigating /ommissioner and the . )+##. his representation of conflicting interests is reprehensible. obstinate or crala virtuala library /oncomitant to the foregoing. conflicts ithout being guilty of professional misconduct.!P !oard of Movernors resolved to adopt and approve the Report and Recommendation of the . either personally or through paid agents or bro-ers. )+#0. conduct pre7udicial to the rights of the parties or to the right determination of the cause. 9A la yer may not. or for any violation of the oath practice. honesty. Section )%. )+##.nvestigating /ommissioner recommended that the respondent be suspended from the practice of la of si' (5) months.

)0 the /ourt e'plained the concept of conflict of interest.er t. even if unrelated.nc. at the very least. is tantamount to representing conflicting interests or. the decent and ethical thing respondent should have done as still the counsel hich the as still the hen he represented ?strelieta as filed by Gimura !usiness hether the la yer ould relation to use against a former client any confidential information ac>uired through their and Manuel in the complaint for falsification filed by Giyoshi. the respondent&s claim that it since it as Manuel as Manuel ho as his client in the case against Amasula and not Giyoshi. o9 34tere1t1 31 2. 8husA hen.er:1 58t. at the same time. .t is uncontroverted that the respondent counsel on record of Giyoshi and ?strelieta in the case against Amasula at the time ?strelieta and Manuel in the case for accounting. 8he respondent&s representation of ?strelieta and Manuel against Giyoshi. Sabitsana# *r. to oppose that claim for the other client. (tt&. contrary to the respondent&s claim. contend for that amba. it is enough that the opposing parties in one hom ould lose the suit. are present clients and the nature or conditions of the la yer&s respective ould affect the performance of the duty of undivided fidelity to both clients... la yers are deemed to represent conflicting interests particulari6ed various tests to determine hich duty to another client re>uires them to oppose. Still another test is be called upon in the ne connection or previous employment. despite being the counsel of Giyoshi in the case against Amasula.e /00ept/40e o9 / 4e2 re6/t3o4 2o865 pre=e4t t. )4 crala virtuala library @urther. /45 6o. ho actively and personally pursued the said case./6t. one of retainers omitted) "i-e ise. *ne test is hether a .e 9866 5310.e per9orm/40e o9 t. 8he respondent should be reminded that la yers are e'pected not only to -eep inviolate their client&s confidence. the of Giyoshi and ?strelieta in the case against Amasula. not ithstanding that he performance of his duty to ards his clients.)2 (/itations omitted and emphasis ours) !ased on the established facts of this case. 8he representation of opposing clients in said cases. the respondent li-e ise appeared as counsel for /oncepts./r7e o9 t. in (ni)on v.5e/6347 34 t. hich is paramount in the administration of 7ustice. Fevelopments in 7urisprudence have hether a la yer&s conduct lies la yer is dutyBbound to fight for an issue or claim in behalf of one client and. )5 immaterial. 4ot. )( (/itation ith each of them . Under the circumstances. but also to avoid the appearance of treachery and doubleBdealing for only then can litigants be encouraged to entrust their secrets to their la yers.er te1t o9 340o4131te40. there is a violation of the rule. 8hus.e 6/2. if a la yer&s argument for one client has to be opposed by that same la yer in arguing for the other client. the fact that the civil case instituted by Giyoshi and ?strelieta against Amasula is totally unrelated to the subse>uent cases in hich he represented ?strelieta and Manuel against Giyoshi is hich this /ourt cannot allo . the /ourt finds substantial evidence to conclude that the respondent violated the prohibition on representation of conflicting interests. it is their duty to ithin this proscription. to t. invites suspicion of doubleBdealing Moreover. creates a suspicion of unfaithfulness or doubleBdealing in the as to advise ?strelieta and Manuel to engage the services of another la yer.. or that there be no occasion to use the confidential information ac>uired from one to the disadvantage of the other as the t o holly unrelated./t 58t.9864e11 or 5o8b6e. @urther. sum of money and attachment that respondent violated the prohibition against representing conflicting interests. o9 8453=35e5 935e63t. 8o be held accountable under this rule.)% the /ourt statedA 8he proscription against representation of conflicting interests applies to a situation be called upon to contend for one client that actions are case. 8he prohibition also applies even if the la yer crala virtuala library hich the la yer has to oppose for the other client.et. the assignee of Giyoshi.n 'uiambao v.e 063e4t or 34=3te 181p303o4 o9 849/3t. in behalf of one client.n broad terms. is ho sought his services and as the one here the opposing parties are ould not ould present clients in the same action or in an unrelated action. . /learly..

Giyoshi and ?strelieta.)$ 8he e'ercise of the po er is not for the purpose of enforcing civil remedies bet een parties. Atty. in vie of the foregoing. ?duardo Sedillo is #IRE"TE# to inform the /ourt of the date of his receipt of this Resolution so that the /ourt can determine the rec-oning point hen his suspension shall ta-e eftect. and all courts in the Philippines. .e. ?duardo Sedillo G+ILT! of misconduct for representing 9or / per3o5 o9 13> %)& mo4t. the . or by suspension from the practice of la .. the /ourt adopts the recommendation of the . $HEREFORE.nvestigating /ommissioner and the . the from si' (5) /ourt has sanctioned erring la yers either by reprimand.n the case under consideration. /onsidering that this is the for a period of si' (5) months effective respondent&s first offense. 3evertheless. 8hat Manuel principals of Manuel. 0# crala virtuala library arranted.n similar cases involving representation of conflicting interests.untenable.!P !oard of Movernors recommended that the respondent be suspended from the practice of la for si' (5) months.nvestigating /ommissioner and the . the /ourt finds Atty. the *ftice of the !ar /onfidant.!P .of /ourt. 0+ crala virtuala library as the one ho actively ere the prosecuted the said case is of no conse>uence= the real parties in interest in the case against Amasula Accordingly. i.t is but a futile attempt on the part of the respondent to e'tricate himself from his predicament. ith a STERN $ RNING that a commission of the same or similar offense in the future . both the .!P !oard of Movernors. the /ourt is not bound by such desistance as the instant case involves public interest. for their information and guidance. "et a copy of this Resolution be entered into the records of Atty. 8he /ourt notes that the complainant had already manifested before the /ommission that he is no longer interested in pursuing his complaint against the respondent.1.nvestigating /ommissioner and the .!P !oard of Movernors and hereby suspends the respondent from the practice of la upon receipt of this Resolution.+0. an administrative sanction against the respondent is months to t o ()) years. effective upon receipt of this Resolution. /anon #4 of the /ode of Professional Responsibility and is S+SPEN#E# from the practice of la of a more severe penalty. ?duardo Sedillo and furnished to the *ffice of the /ler. as aptly found by the . Manuel as merely the agent of Giyoshi and ?strelieta in the case against Amasula. but to protect the court and the public against an attorney guilty of un orthy practices in his profession. ill result in the imposition conflicting interests in violation of Rule #4.ntegrated !ar of the Philippines. .

0 chanroble svirtuala library 5.!P) charging respondent Atty. Mlenn Macott&s father. "ilia 8abang as able to purchase seven parcels and obtained the corresponding 8ransfer /ertificates of cralavvonline la library 8itle (8/8) under the names of fictitious persons. ( ithout pre7udice to their being Subse>uently. /laiming that he ere in need of funds for ould help complainants by offering the parcels to prospective buyers.n the course of the proceedings. 8his case involves a complaint for disbarment directly filed #.ntegrated !ar of the Philippines (. 4 *n the prete't of offering a remedy to complainants. the public prosecutor noticed similarities in the signatures of the supposed o ners that ere affi'ed on the Special Po ers of Attorney (SPA) purportedly e'ecuted in favor of "ilia 8abang. GLENN ". *86.+# of the /ode of Professional Responsibility (/PR). "ilia 8abang intended to purchase a total of thirty (0+) hectares of agricultural land located in !arangay !acungan. 5 . 8/8 3o. #)2%4 H Amelia Andes= chanroblesvirtuala library ). ) ?ventually.1054@. complainant "ilia 8abang sought the advice of Iudge ?usta>uio Macott. G "OTT. 8abang hich consisted of several parcels belonging to different o ners. 8/8 3o. Respondent then told the complainants that he had lost all seven titles. 8hus. #)%$0 H ?li6abeth Fungan= and nadcralavvonlinela library "ater. 8/8 3o. Iudge Macott noted that under the government&s agrarian reform program. 8/8 3o. )4'0 ?Former6. Complainsnts# v. Iudge Macott advised her to put the titles of the parcels under the names of fictitious persons. 8/8 3o. complainants confronted respondent. respondent advised them to file petitions in court for reBissuance of titles. TT!. 2013 LILI T B NG N# "ON"EP"ION T B NG. "ilia 8abang had the petitions voluntarily dismissed reBfiled. as prohibited from ac>uiring vast tracts of agricultural land as she already o ned other parcels. respondent Mlenn Macott borro ed from "ilia 8abang the 8/8s covering the parcels. she changed the fictitious o ners& signatures in the .. dishonest. Pretending to be the 9authori6ed agentBrepresentative< of the fictitious o ners of the seven parcels. Pala an. #)%$# H "eonor Petronio= chanroblesvirtuala library 4. Puerto Princesa. as follo sA #. 2 About a year after respondent borro ed the titles and after he failed to negotiate any sale. 8he public prosecutor. #)%$) H Wilfredo Mome6= %. "ilia 8abang filed a ne set of petitions. #)%$+ H Agnes /amilla= chanroble svirtuala library chanroble svirtuala library 2. 8/8 3o. Mlenn Macott of engaging in unla ful.". as-ed the court to have the supposed o ners summoned. #)2%5 H Wilfredo *ndoy= 0. % See-ing to avoid embarrassment. respondent Atty. "B# "/1e No. #)%$2 H Andes ?stoy. 8his time. Respondent. 8/8 3o. 03. 0'. "ilia 8abang filed petitions for reBissuance of titles. acting on his observation. immoral or deceitful conduct in violation of Rule /omplainants alleged that sometime in #$(2 and #$(4. # ith the . complainants "ilia and /oncepcion 8abang decided to sell the seven parcels as they their medication and other e'penses. No.

1e paid for the said parcel in t o ()) installments. 8he case as then assigned to .5%4. 8hey agreed on the purchase of a lot priced at P). 8hus. introduced ithheld /orporation. +0B#+42. respondent e'ecuted several documents that included revocations of SPAs and various affidavits of recovery purportedly signed by the parcels& (fictitious) o ners.+++.0++. complainants filed their complaint directly ith the . Respondent then caused the annotation of these documents on the 8/8s of the seven parcels. the alleged lot o ner. there could not as referred to the have been ade>uate basis for sustaining the imposition of a penalty as grave as disbarment. 1e alleged that after she had been refused to be given a 9 balato. 3avarro found respondent guilty of gross misconduct for violating Rule #. )++4= *ctober %. the case Supreme /ourt pursuant to Rule #0$B! of the Rules of /ourt. Upon learning that "ilia 8abang had caused the annotation of an adverse claim. #% 8he complainants presented several #( itnesses.!P !oard of Movernors increased the penalty to disbarment. Another of complainants& itnesses as Atty. in turn. @una. Pala an. 1is company. 1ein6e noted that his company failure to produce "eonor Petronio.ntegrated !ar of the Philippines on @ebruary 0.!P .more varied.on the . *ne as Fieter 1ein6e.+++.!P !oard of Movernors adopted the report of /ommissioner 3avarro. ho ever. )++%= and Iuly )4. President of the S iss American "ending ho.++. #$ 1e testified that 1ein6e introduced him to respondent payment upon his reali6ation that "ilia 8abang had caused the annotation of an adverse claim and upon respondent&s ho.n a Resolution dated September )$.+++. respondent caused the publication of notices announced that these ## here he represented himself as the o ner of the parcels and ere for sale. She recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of la for si' (5) months. Pala an. respondent succeeded in selling the seven parcels.!P. )++2. dishonesty. introduced himself as the o ner of seven (%) parcels in Puerto Princesa /ity.n a Resolution dated April #5.#4 the . 1earings ere conducted on March )). 1o ever. 8hereafter.%%0. #+ Also.hope of ma-ing them loo.n her Report and Recommendation dated March 2. )++2. respondent alleged that the o ners of the seven parcels ere not fictitious and that they had voluntarily sold the seven parcels. 1ein6e testified that in April )++#.his disbarment. )++5= August )$. paid only P55(. )++0. )++4= Iuly #(. 8hey agreed on the purchase of a lot priced at P$++. )++2.$ Upon learning that "ilia 8abang had filed a ne set of petitions. in turn. #2 .++. #) Alleging that respondent committed gross misconduct. .nvestigating /ommissioner "ydia A. 8he /ourt noted that ma7ority of the pieces of evidence presented by complainants persons ho supposedly e'ecuted such documents ere mere photocopies and affidavits and that the ere neither presented nor subpoenaed. #5 the Supreme /ourt remanded the case to the .nvestigating /ommissioner Fennis !. . 1e added that "ilia 8abang had been merely the bro-er for the seven parcels and that she had unsuccessfully demanded a 9balato< of t enty percent ()+R) from the proceeds of the sale of the seven parcels.+# of the /ode of Professional Responsibility. the . Agerico Paras.< "ilia 8abang had threatened to defame him and see.#0 .++ from the proceeds of the sales. .++. )++5= 3ovember %. )++%. 1e received a total of C0. and deceit. "ater. a friend introduced him to respondent himself as the o ner of seven (%) parcels in Puerto Princesa /ity.n his defense. )++5= @ebruary )0. he rote to respondent as-ing him to either or. 8he case as doc-eted as /ommission on !ar Fiscipline (/!F) /ase 3o.

As such.n the meantime. stric-en from the Roll of Attorneys. and ho. and on the results of clarificatory >uestioning (if such >uestioning Reconsideration as denied.n his Report and Recommendation dated August )0. 1e asserted that "ilia 8abang could not have been the o ner of the seven (%) parcels since the SPAs e'ecuted by the parcels& o ners clearly made her a mere agent and him a subBagent. /omplainant "ilia 8abang also testified on the matters stated in the /omplaint. the . Macott< had been mere as absent in most of the hearings ithout 7ustifiable reason. respondent claimed. it as deemed proper for an . /ommissioner @una re>uired the complainants to submit their Position Paper. as reassigned to . on the parties& Position Papers (and supporting documents). in violation of Rule #). 1e claimed that since #$$5.!P !oard of Movernors denied respondent&s Motion for Reconsideration.+# of the /PR. )( Respondent then filed his 3otice of Appeal ith the . )+#+.nvestigating /ommissioner to submit hisPher Report and Recommendation based on matters discussed during the mandatory conferences. )++$. he had relied on the 8orrens 8itles of the seven (%) o ners ho ere introduced to him by "ilia 8abang.+++.!PB/!F&s Rules of Procedure. )++%. . the . respondent noted that he filed criminal complaints against "ilia 8abang on account of 8abang&s statement that she had fabricated the identities of the o ners of the seven (%) parcels. 1e recommended that respondent be disbarred and his name.!P !oard of Movernors issued a Resolution )% adopting the Report of . Mallinero agreed to purchase a parcel for the price of P). *n *ctober (. deprived him of the as 9bent on pre7udicing< )) him. . *n Iune )5. he hectares as introduced to respondent ho claimed that several parcels ith a total area of thirty (0+) hich he ere o ned by his mother. "impingco. 1e also assailed the authenticity of the public announcements ( here he supposedly offered the seven forgeries and crude duplications of his o n signature.!P on August (. 1e li-e ise noted that respondent )5 % parcels for sale) and Memorandum of Agreement.+2 of the /PR. ith the Supreme /ourt En anc+s approval of the .+++.nhibition of /ommissioner @una chance to crossBe'amine complainants& itnesses. )2 Subse>uently. and he as found to be necessary). . )+ 1e testified that in @ebruary )++#.++ paid in cash and in -ind ("B0++ van). )+##. also testified for complainants. as unable to produce Amelia Andes. the case /ommissioner "impingco&s Report and Recommendation. another buyer of one of the seven parcels. the 8eodoro Mallinero. )+#+.nvestigating /ommissioner Rico /ommissioner @una then inhibited himself. )# *n Iuly )4. the case A. )4 /ommissioner "impingco found respondent liable for gross violation of Rule #. )0 as deemed submitted for *n Iuly 0+. 1e surmised that the signatures on such documents appearing above the name 9Mlenn /. respondent filed his Position Paper.cancellation of the claim or to reimburse him. )+##. @ollo ing this. 1e added that respondent ostensible o ner of the parcel he had purchased. .n his Position Paper. respondent&s Motion for as re>uired to file his Position Paper. Respondent filed his Motion for Reconsideration and the .nvestigating /ommissioner "impingco.

+# of the /ode of Professional Responsibility.n rennisen v.+# of the /PR ith and adopts the findings and recommendation of /ommissioner "impingco and the .*n August #%. . h. /onta i as disbarred for having used a spurious SPA to mortgage and sell property entrusted to him for administration. or even mitigate. )+## H both of hich arned respondent that no further e'tension ill be given.advantage of his -no ledge and s-ill to pre7udice and torment other individuals. the /ourt concurs dishonesty. Ramon U. hen he e'ecuted the revocations of SPAs and affidavits of recovery and in arrogating for himself the o nership of the seven (%) sub7ect parcels. the complainant&s o n complicity does not negate. Conta.t is established in Iurisprudence that disbarment is proper deceit in usurping the property rights of other persons. he orchestrated it. )+##. !y hen la yers commit gross misconduct. *n September )+. he instigated it. respondent filed t o ()) more Motions for ?'tension H the first on September )$. 3ot only did he countenance illicit action. thus After a careful e'amination of the records. Under Rule #0(. a la yer may be disbarred for any of the follo ing groundsA cralavvonline la library a. )+## and the ere denied by the /ourt. dishonest. e. f. 8hus. 3ot only did he ac>uiesce to in7ustice. hether or not respondent engaged in unla ful. immoral or deceitful conduct arranting his disbarment. respondent filed before the Supreme /ourt his Urgent Motion for ?'tension of 8ime (to file Petition for Revie PAppeal). deceit= chanroble svirtuala library malpractice= chanroble svirtuala library gross misconduct in office= grossly immoral conduct= chanroble svirtuala library chanroble svirtuala library conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude= violation of the la yerLs oath= chanroble svirtuala library chanroblesvirtuala library illful disobedience of any la ful order of a superior court= and illfully appearing as an attorney for a party ithout authority to do so. respondent filed on Fecember #2. c. he deliberately and cunningly too. his offense is made even graver. )+##. and fair hat is e'pected of him. 8his Motion @or resolution is the issue of as denied by the /ourt on April #%. honesty. Section )% of the Rules of /ourt (Rules). Juite the contrary. and ay of e'amplesA cralavvonline la library a. . violating Rule #. Fespite the /ourt&s denials of his Motions for ?'tension. 8he Supreme /ourt second on 3ovember 0. )+#).!P !oard of Movernors. dishonesty. the repugnancy of respondent&s offense. While it may be true that complainant "ilia 8abang herself engaged in illicit activities. the /ourt granted respondent&s Motion and gave him an e'tension of thirty (0+) days to file his Appeal. We impose upon respondent the supreme penalty of disbarment.i-)$ Respondent Atty.t is clear that respondent committed gross misconduct. d. . 1e is a la yer dealing. and deceit in violation of Rule #. Perverting of the la ho is held to the highest standards of morality. Fespite this. b. integrity. . )+## a Motion to Admit Petition for Revie PAppeal ( ith attached PetitionPAppeal). g.

04 9:p. . b. as such. . respondent misrepresented himself as the o ner of or having the right to dispose of the sub7ect parcels= respondent actively sought to sell or other ise dispose of the sub7ect parcels= chanroblesvirtuala library chanroble svirtuala library . complainants have sho n not only through "ilia 8abang&s testimony but more so through the testimonies of Fieter 1ein6e.n this case. recourse to disbarment must be done ith utmost caution. their intelligence. 8he chanroblesvirtuala library itnesses& interest or ant of interest and also their personal credibility so far as the same may ultimately appear in the trial= and d. Agerico Paras.n Saba&le v. although it does not mean that preponderance is necessarily ith the greater . and 8eodoro Mallinero thatA cralavvonlinela library a. complainants have sho n by a preponderance of evidence that respondent committed gross misconduct.< 05 hich is more convincing to the court as Per Rule #00. Ramon "egaspi for having converted to his personal use the funds that he received for his clients. a court may consider the follo ing in determining preponderance of evidenceA cralavvonlinela library a. Specifically. as disbarred for having ac-no ledged a Feed of Sale in the absence of the purported vendors and for ta-ing advantage of his position as Assistant /ler. as a hole. . Mabor. 8he number of number. /armelito !. !egaspiA0# 8he /ourt disbarred respondent Atty. or fine H ould accomplish the end desired. and. the probability or improbability of their hich they are testifying. c. . should no longer remain a member of the bar.+# of the /PR. 02 As e'plained in (ba v.reponderance of evidence means that the evidence adduced by one side is. superior to or has greater orthy of belief than that eight than that of the other. disbarment should not be decreed suspension. Atty. dishonesty.n %aro& v. it has been established that clearly preponderant evidence is necessary to 7ustify its imposition. 3evertheless. %e 0u1man. As this /ourt noted in /oran v. considering the gravity of disbarment.b. the po er to disbar must al ays be e'ercised ith great caution. and deceit in violation of Rule #. by his serious misconduct. Atty. Fisbarment is the most severe form of disciplinary sanction.t means evidence hich is offered in opposition thereto. All the facts and circumstances of the case= 8he chanroble svirtuala library itnesses& manner of testifying. of misconduct affecting the standing and moral character of the la yer as an officer of the court and member of the bar. itnesses. Accordingly. only for the most imperative reasons and in clear cases here any punishment less severe H such as a reprimand. b.of /ourt by purchasing oneBhalf (#P)) of the land covered by said Feed of Sale -no ing that the deed as fictitious. the nature of the facts to testimony= c. their means and opportunity of -no ing the facts to hich they testify.anda&agA0+ *ne of the respondents. /oronA0) Fisbarment should never be imposed unless it is evidently clear that the la yer. Section # of the Rules. 00 Moreover.

n urging this /ourt to sustain him. much less produce their actual persons. @or instance. respondent failed to present evidence to rebut complainantLs allegations. As to his allegations regarding "ilia 8abang&s supposed e'tortion and threat and the forgery or crude duplication of his signature. and 8eodoro Mallinero are particularly significant in so far as they have been made despite the fact that their interest as buyers is contrary to that of complainants& interest as adverse claimants. al ays respects and recogni6es the . and fraudulent. Section # of the Rules of /ourt. hich form the very basis of complainants& o n At best. he failed to produce the slightest proof of their identities and e'istence. hat the 8/8s and SPAs indicate and the "ilia 8abang does not appear on the parcels& 8/8s 0$ and ho o ners.n this regard. . Agerico Paras. respondent merely dra s conclusions from the documents allegations and Respondent ma-es much of ho 2+ hich are actually being assailed by complainants as inaccurate. respondent perfected the sales and received the proceeds of the sales H sub7ect parcels= chanroble svirtuala library hether in cash or in -ind H of the such sales ere ithout the consent or authori6ation of complainants= and respondent never remitted the proceeds of the sales to complainants. Atty.s a la yer.n contrast. all that respondent can come up 2) deception they engender that are the cru' of the present controversy. Respondent also evaded the allegations against him by flinging counterB allegations. the determination that he committed the violation is sustained. 2# 1o ever. respondent ith are generic. 8hus. . More importantly. . and selfBserving allegations of (#) ho office not to accept 8orrens title any 8orrens title from anybody and for he could not have obtained the 8/8s from 8abang as 9it is a standing policy of his la :sic. . unreliable. Per Rule #0#. Juite the contrary. Similarly. Respondent&s defense centered on his insistence that the o ners of the seven parcels ere not fictitious and that they had voluntarily sold the seven parcels. 0utierre10( ho alleges the truth of ere his claim or defense or any fact in issue. he pointed out that he had filed criminal complaints against "ilia 8abang. he alleged that "ilia 8abang had unsuccessfully demanded a 9 balato< from the proceeds of the sale of the sub7ect parcels and that after she had been refused. e. they remain 7ust that H allegations. Macott< mere forgeries and crude duplications of his signature. Respondent failed to aver facts and circumstances hich support these claims.c. unless it is related to a court case< and because 9:he.t as incumbent upon respondent to prove his allegation that the supposed o ners of the seven parcels are real persons. s eeping. complainants& produce such persons or even sho itnesses sho ed that hen respondent had been confronted ith "ilia 8abang&s adverse claims and as-ed to substantiate the identities of the supposed o ners of the sub7ect parcels. does not borro hatever purpose=< ()) ho 20 complainants could not have confronted him to demand the return of the 8/8s and ho he could not have told them that he lost the 8/8s because 9:a. in !eave %ivision# 2ffice of (dministrative Services# 2ffice of the Court here a party resorts to bare denials and allegations and fails to submit evidence in support of his defense. 1e also surmised that the signatures on the sub7ect documents appearing above the name 9Mlenn /. 0% the burden of proof is vested upon the party (dministrator v. she threatened to defame respondent and seehis disbarment. :he. he ma-es much of ho respondent loses sight of the fact that it is precisely the accuracy of ould have us rely on the very documents assailed as fraudulent. d. the testimonies of Fieter 1ein6e.n support of this allegation. "ilia 8abang could not have been the o ner of the seven (%) parcels since her name he merely respected the title and o nership of the ostensible as named as a mere agent in the SPAs. . he had failed to an iota of proof of their e'istence. Apart from these.

but also to his brethren in the profession. he employed his -no ledge and s-ill of the la the course of several years in a sustained and unrelenting fashion and outdid his previous greater. MA/*88. 8his evasive posturing not ithstanding.< 2% Respondent has fallen dismally and disturbingly short of the high standard of morality. he is all but averse to rectifying his as ell as too. integrity. 9:l. integrity and fair dealing. respondent merely embar-s on con7ectures and ascribes motives to complainants. honesty. "et copies of this Fecision be served on the *ffice of the !ar /onfidant.ntegrated !ar of the Philippines. honesty. thus inviting the /ourt to be a party in delaying complainants& cause. and ta-es part in one of the most important functions of the State H the administration of 7ustice H as an officer of the court. but also of morality.right of an o ner to -eep in his custody or possession any of his properties of value=< 22 and (0) ho met and tal-ed constituted his livelihood. is #ISB RRE# and his name ordered STRI"-EN from the Roll of Attorneys. Respondent even foisted ith the much e'tended upon the . 1e has hardly sho n any remorse.a yers are bound to maintain not only a high standard of legal proficiency. @or all his perversity. and of threatening to defame him and to see. and all courts in the country for their information and guidance. more detestable offenses. and deceitful in violation of Rule #.of evidence adduced by respondent.sanctions against respondent. "et a copy of this Fecision be attached to respondentLs personal record as attorney. this /ourt is led to no other reasonable conclusion than that respondent committed the acts of the /ode of Professional Responsibility. $HEREFORE. immoral. 1e also ve'ed this /ourt to admit his Appeal despite his o n failure to comply respondent deserves none of this /ourt&s clemency. Juite the contrary. 1e accuses "ilia 8abang of demanding a 9 balato< of t enty percent ()+R) from the proceeds of the sale of the seven parcels. M"?33 /. having clearly violated the /anons of Professional Responsibility through his unla ful. Miven the glaring disparity bet een the evidence adduced by complainants and the sheer lac. and there as no reason for him to refuse an occasion to earn income. dishonest. and fair dealing re>uired of him. /omplaint and see. 8his /ourt has repeatedly emphasi6ed that the practice of la is imbued ith public interest and that 9a la yer o es hich he is accused and that he acted in a manner that is unla ful. . and deceitful conduct.<25 Accordingly. "ilia 8abang had sufficient basis to file the present substantial duties not only to his client. respondent A88O. @rom ho proceedings. @rom all indications. the . dishonest.+# of hat is clear is that respondent failed to adduce even the slightest proof to substantiate these claims. 1e did so over rongdoing he has conducted himself in these ithout 7ustifiable ays and assuaging complainants& plight. period given to him.his disbarment after she had been refused.!P and this /ourt his duplicity by repeatedly absenting himself from the .advantage ith even of the credulity of petitioners to secure undue gains for himself and to inflict serious damage on others. and to the nation. 24 he could not have ith "ilia 8abang for the engagement of his services only to refuse "ilia 8abang because legal practice Rather than responding s>uarely to complainants& allegations.!P&s hearings reasons. to the courts.

barred. )++0. !ranch 0) (R8/). admitting to have agreed to ho claimed to be the tenant and rightful occupant of the sub7ect property o ned by the late Pelagia "ascano (Pelagia). *n appeal. complainant filed the instant hich resulted in her loss. orry. *86.5 Respondent received a copy of the /A&s ruling on Ianuary )%. submit a preBtrial brief as by respondent. Oet. As such. based on these incidents. 0(. Ramon SM /abanes. Fue to respondent&s failure to timely turnBover to her the papers and documents in the case. *n Fecember 0+. failed to ell as to attend the scheduled preliminary conference. v. doc-eted as /ivil /ase 3o. /onse>uently. *R. ) filed by the heirs of herein she as represented one !en7amin Fon (heirs) before the Municipal 8rial /ourt of Pili. ordering her to vacate and turnBover the possession of the sub7ect property to the heirs as ell as to pay them damages. reversed the M8/ Fecision and dismissed the unla ful detainer complaint. the /ourt of Appeals (/A) reversed the R8/&s ruling and reinstated the M8/ Fecision. /amarines Sur (M8/). Respondent. respondent filed a Manifestation represent complainant ith /ompliance #+ dated May #$. not ithstanding the fact that the latter fre>uented his % or. No. such other remedies ere.. #E S L#IC R. Accordingly. #$%). he noticed a discrepancy bet een the descriptions of the sub7ect property as indicated in the said pleading as opposed to . 8hus. )++(.4 "ater ho ever. 2013 *OSEFIN " R NB C# .place. moved that the case be submitted for decision assuring her that she When complainant confronted respondent about the foregoing. charging him for gross negligence in violation of /anon #%.. )++0. the M8/ issued a Fecision 2 (M8/ Fecision) against complainant. Complainant. he. )++(. While respondent duly filed an ans er to the unla ful detainer complaint. T. R MON SG " B NES. alleging that respondent&s acts amounted to gross negligence . 3either did respondent pursue any further action.+0 and #(. 1e alleged that upon careful e'amination of the heirsL unla ful detainer complaint. the opposing counsel hich motion as granted in an *rder 0 dated 3ovember )%.n a Resolution$ dated March #+. )++5.e F/0t1 /omplainant as the defendant in an unla ful detainer case. TT!. ho ever. complainant decided to engage the services of another counsel for the purpose of see-ing other available remedies.+2 of /anon #( of the /ode of Professional Responsibility (/ode). and Rules #(. /amarines Sur. he failed to inform complainant about the said ruling. ( administrative complaint. ho ever.". Ir. the /ourt directed respondent to comment on the administrative complaint ithin ten (#+) days from notice. (respondent). @or the /ourt&s resolution is an administrative complaint # filed by Iosefina /aran6a vda. de Saldivar (complainant) against Atty. the Regional 8rial /ourt of Pili. the latter 7ust apologi6ed and told her not to ill not lose the case since she had the title to the sub7ect property. AA4'.

)++0. )++$.!P) for its evaluation. . the . an Mean hile. Fue to such information. 8his led the latter to believe that the preliminary conference scheduled on ould not push through.n relation. issued a Report and Recommendation (/ommissioner&s Report).e IBP:1 Report /45 Re0omme45/t3o4 *n Iune #(. the preliminary conference As it turned out. )++0 hich resulted in the to turn sour and eventually be severed. complainant accused respondent of manipulating the FAR Survey Results another la yer. at the preliminary conference conducted on *ctober )(. respondent.n a Resolution#( dated Iuly %. he advised complainant that it instead of contesting the appeal filed by the heirs before the /A. 8hus. the /ourt resolved to refer the instant administrative case to the . "ater. he proffered that he duly appealed the adverse M8/ Fecision to the R8/. the heirs& counsel 3ovember )%. not ithstanding their agreement. )++(.#% . he inadvertently missed the ith an important provincial conference hearing. complainant manifested her intention to secure the services of a private surveyor of her o n choice. )++0 #0 as unable to furnish respondent copies of the aboveBstated documents. !ased on several documents furnished to him by certain FAR personnel. .nvestigating /ommissioner). Respondent averred that the aforesaid setting also happened to coincide hich he as re>uired to attend. #2 resulting to the dismissal of the unla ful detainer complaint. ho ever. complainant ( ho too. )++0. respondent as satisfied that Placida indeed held the sub7ect property for a long time and actually tilled as as indeed entitled to the the same in the name of Pelagia. As such. and promised to furnish respondent a copy of the survey results. 1ence. (PF) )% filed by Pelagia against #4 as complainant&s mother. failed to do. report and recommendation.+++ s>uare meters of the sub7ect property hich as determined to belong to the heirs.!P /ommission on !ar Fiscipline set the case for mandatory conference on April #4. leading to the assignment of a Fepartment of Agrarian Reform Survey ?ngineer (FAR ?ngineer) for this purpose. the rest being covered by the title hich she. #) conduct and results of the reBsurvey. Rebecca KillanuevaBMaala (. )# finding respondent to have been negligent in failing to attend the preliminary conference in /ivil /ase 3o. hich caused their la yerBclient relationship of Pelagia.!P /ommissioner. )++$ #$ and re>uired the parties to submit their respective position papers.that hich complainant supplied to him. an opposition to the issuance of a emancipation patent covering the sub7ect property is issued. the survey conducted by the FAR ?ngineer revealed that complainantLs tillage e'tended to about 4. albeit later reversed by the /A. #5 rit may be filed based on the aforeBstated reasons.nvestigating . 8he .t >uash such ould be best to pursue remedies at the administrative level.over the tilling) H sub7ect property. respondent convinced that Placida H and conse>uently. the heirs& counsel agreed to turnBover to respondent in his office## certain documents hich indicated the sub7ect property&s description. moved for the suspension of further proceedings and proposed that a commissioner be appointed to conduct a reBsurvey in order to determine the true identity of the property in dispute. especially if an approved plan and later. respondent came upon the information that the disputed property sub7ect of a petition for e'emption from the coverage of Presidential Fecree 3o. 3onetheless. #$%) set on 3ovember )%. thereby placing it under PF )% coverage. She has since retrieved the entire case folders and retained the services of . Fissatisfied. )+ T.ntegrated !ar of the Philippines (. Placida /aran6a (Placida). pending the as tentatively reset to 3ovember )%. as respondent&s calculated legal strategy that in rit of e'ecution or a motion to the event the /A reverses the decision of the R8/. 8he M8/ allo ed the counsels for both parties to decide on the manner of the proposed reBsurvey. pending the heirsL appeal to the /A. 8hereafter. *n the belief that the parties may be contesting t o ()) sets of properties hich are distinct and separate from one another.

Kerily.e "o8rtD1 R86347 8he /ourt resolves to adopt the . Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration )4 Fecember #2. and Rules #(. )) opposition to the heirs& appeal. )0 arranting his suspension from the practice of la for a period of si' (5) 8he . Also.n this light.!PLs findings and recommendation. the .+0 and #(. 8he . finding the same to be fully supported by the evidence on record and in accord and rules. and competence to the case. )% /anon #%. hich as. regardless of its importance and hether he accepts it for a fee or for free. Rule #(. ho ever. respondent&s enumerations of his legal options to allegedly protect the complainant&s interests 8hus. respondent never mentioned any legal remedy that hen the heirs elevated the decision of the R8/ to the /A. s-ill. @urther.immediate submission of the said case for decision and eventual loss of complainant&s cause. he did not file any comment or ere found to be thought only after the fact. N. considering that the 3ovember )%. . NNB)+#)B4#% )5 dated ith applicable la s ould be everBmindful of their cause and accordingly e'ercise the re>uired degree of diligence in handling their affairs. denied.+2 H A la yer shall -eep the client informed of the status of his case and shall respond time to the clientLs re>uest for information. /ase la further illumines that a la yer&s duty of competence and diligence includes not merely revie ing the cases ithin a reasonable entrusted to the counselLs care or giving sound legal advice.!P !oard of Movernors adopted and approved the /ommissioner&s Report in Resolution 3o. months. @inally. .+2 of /anon #( of the /ode embody these >uintessential directives and thus. and his negligence in connection there ith shall render him liable. )+##. )++0 ith him. Rule #(.nvestigating /ommissioner observed that respondent could have e'ercised ordinary diligence by in>uiring from the court as to setting hether the said preliminary conference ould push through. preparing and filing the re>uired pleadings. the fact that respondent ith the said setting hardly serves as an e'cuse as only tentative and the heirs& counsel as not able to confer hich coincided had to attend an important provincial conference he undertoo- since he should have sent a substitute counsel on his behalf.NB)+##B)55 )2 dated May #2. . attending scheduled hearings or conferences. /A3*3 #( H A la yer shall serve his client ith competence and diligence. )+#). respectively stateA cralavvonlinela library /A3*3 #% B A la yer o es fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him. but also consists of properly representing the client before any court or tribunal. T. based on the foregoing. 8he relationship bet een an attorney and his client is one imbued clients are led to e'pect that la yers ith utmost trust and confidence.nvestigating /ommissioner ruled that respondent failed to e'ercise ordinary diligence in handling his clientLs cause. and to devote his full attention.+0 H A la yer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him.n fact. in Resolution 3o. a la yer is e'pected to maintain at all times a high standard of legal proficiency.

i. a la yerLs negligence in fulfilling his duties sub7ects him to disciplinary action.of care and diligence in managing his client&s cause. . 0# . and Rules #(. As correctly observed by the . it cannot be gainsaid that respondent of the /ode. . 1e is hereby S+SPEN#E# from the practice of la for a period of si' (5) months. e'hibits respondent&s ine'cusable lac. $ RNE# that a repetition of the same or similar acts . conference as found guilty of gross negligence and hence. the /ourt finds it proper to impose the same penalty against respondent $HEREFORE. as also suspended for si' (5) months. Records sho 3o. that the defendant&s failure to appear at the preliminary conference already entitles the plaintiff to a 7udgment. and urging their termination )( ithout aiting for the client or the court to prod him or her to do so. )$ While such negligence or carelessness is incapable of e'act formulation.+0 and #(. inform his client of any adverse resolution. . As regards respondent&s suggested legal strategy to pursue the case at the administrative level. .. All told. respondent Atty. ith e'isting 7urisprudence. is found guilty of gross negligence in violation of /anon #%. . a la yer entrusted to him by his client in breach of /anons #% and #( of the /ode 8hus. 8he fact that respondent had an important commitment during that day hardly ould have been for him to send a substitute e'culpates him from his omission since the prudent course of action ould not have been left unattended in vie proceedings. thereby precluding her from availing of any further remedies. #$%) hearing confer that he failed to 7ustify his absence during the scheduled preliminary conference hearing in /ivil /ase hether the said as yet to hich led the same to be immediately submitted for decision. as in this case. and is STERNL! ill be dealt ith more severely. the /ourt has consistently held that the la yer&s mere failure to perform the obligations due his client is per se a violation.nvestigating ould push through.iburcio 3. secondBguessing the conduct of the ithout any contingent measure. *uanino. especially so since it as only tentatively set and considering further that he /ommissioner. ?>ually compelling is the fact that respondent purposely failed to assail the heirs& appeal before the /A. Ramon SM /abanes. As regards the appropriate penalty. these are basic courses of action ma-e.n Heirs of allesteros# Sr. effective upon his receipt of this Resolution. suspended for si' (5) months. he should have been more circumspect to ensure that the aforesaid hearing of its adverse conse>uences. or even.ndeed. ho failed to appear at the scheduled hearing despite due notice ho did not file a preBtrial brief and 02 of the case for decision .prosecuting the handled cases ith reasonable dispatch.n (randa v.rrefragably. Ir.+2 of /anon #( of the /ode of Professional Responsibility.e. respondent could have e'ercised ordinary diligence by in>uiring from the court as to ith the opposing counsel.n fact. Records disclose that he even failed to rebut complainantLs allegation that he neglected to inform her about the /A ruling hich he had duly received. (piag#00 a la yer as li-e ise suspended for si' (5) months. much less counsel to appear on his behalf. /onversely.0+ Applying these principles to the present case. in violation of the aboveBcited provisions that la yers ho have been held liable for gross negligence hich resulted in the submission as absent during the preBtrial ho neglected a legal matter ere suspended for a period of si' (5) months. v. consistent and accordingly suspends him for a period of si' (5) months.n (biero v. a la yer 0) hich every diligent la yer is e'pected to as guilty of gross negligence. the /ourt finds that respondent failed to e'ercise the re>uired diligence in handling complainant&s cause. several cases sho for infractions similar to those of the respondent Ela&da. suffice it to state that the same does not e'cuse him from failing to file a comment or an opposition to an appeal.

in Jue6on /ity. After the preliminary investigation. An attorney ho ittingly represents and serves conflicting interests may be suspended from the practice of la . William /. . ith violation of his trust and confidence of a client by representing the interest of ?milia /. Sison. E#G R#O O. 1).. Aguilar Samson engaged Atty. Atty. ?ra manner that blatantly conflicted Samson and his relatives ith his interest. )++). a corporation ere led by Sison. ?ra to represent and assist him and his relatives in the criminal prosecution of Sison and her group. and in turn they received a deed of assignment covering land registered under 8ransfer /ertificate of 8itle 3o.". ith Sison and her cohorts.reneo /. *86. ere . 8hey acceded and e'ecuted the affidavit of desistance he prepared. Sison. Mirasol 1. ER . ?dgardo *. )))4. v. )++) demanding the return or refund of the money sub7ect of their complaints. No. hose corporate officers . ?'porter./S ?'ports. in a ere among the investors ho fell prey to the pyramiding scam perpetrated by . 1e told Samson and the others that undergoing a trial of the cases aste of time. S MSON. ) ./S /orporation in e'change for their desistance./S /orporation). Samudio.nc. Sison. the complaintBaffidavit charging Sison and the other corporate officials of . ?ra called a meeting settlement be a ith Samson and his relatives to discuss the possibility of an amicable ould 7ust ith ith Sison and her group.n April )++0. 8he other officers and Ihun Sison. !ranch $5 (R8/). Respondent./S /orporation. ?ra that they be given instead a deed of absolute sale to enable . Mimosa 1. Pursuant to the engagement. his present client. Subse>uently./S /orporation ith several counts of estafa# as presented to the *ffice of the /ity Prosecutor of Jue6on /ity ith several counts (*/PJ/). Atty. Samson has brought this complaint for disbarment charging respondent Atty. the */PJ/ formally charged Sison and the others of estafa in the Regional 8rial /ourt. 1e also prepared the complaintBaffidavit that Samson signed and s ore to on Iuly )5.0 Samson and his relatives later demanded from Atty. TT!. 4te0e5e4t1 even disbarred @erdinand A. and that they could settle the cases him guaranteeing the turnover to them of a certain property located in Antipolo /ity belonging to . and MultiB"evel Mar-eting !usiness (. RB22%4 e'ecuted by Sison in behalf of . Complainant. 2013 FER#IN N# . or hen circumstances so arrant. ?ra prepared the demand letter dated Iuly #$.mporter. money and effort for them.

/S /orporation. ho ever. )++5. ?ra had appeared as the counsel of Sison in the cases for estafa pending and being tried in said courts. they established Atty. ?ra before the latter delivered to them on 3ovember )%. *n September )%. Samson and his group remind him about his guarantee and the promise to settle the issues from Atty.n the comment that he subse>uently filed on April ##. confidence and respect reposed in him as their counsel. Atty. )++5 in the *ffice of the !ar /onfidant. Upon their ith . Samson reiterated his complaint for disbarment against Atty. ?ra alleged that the conclusion on April )0. on one hand. ?ra did not anymore appear for Samson and his group. *n Iuly #%. Atty.( 8hey also submitted a certification issued on 3ovember 0. ?ra told them that from lien or defect hether or not the title of the property had been encumbered or free as concerned he had ould no longer be his responsibility. the /ourt referred the case to the . 8hey ere shoc-ed to find out later on. #0 the /ourt re>uired Atty. on the other. )++) of the compromise settlement bet een Samson and his group. % . )++0. he did not file his comment. ?ra.of that unit. ?ra at all./S /orporation but urging./S /orporation. )++2 to Fue to the silence of Atty.Wise . ?ra had already been entering his appearance as the counsel for Sison in her other criminal cases in the other branches of the R8/ in Jue6on /ity involving the same pyramiding scam that she and her .nc. he had been appointed as counsel de officio for Sison by !ranch #+) of the R8/ in Jue6on /ity only for purposes of her arraignment.ntegrated !ar of the Philippines (.2 When Samson and his coBcomplainants verified the title of the property at the Registry of Feeds and the Assessor&s *ffice of Antipolo /ity. they ere dismayed to learn that they could not li>uidate the property because it 4 as no longer registered under the name of . Atty. #) !y its resolution dated March #. )++4. #2 Atty. ?ra&s legal representation of Sison by submitting several certified copies of the minutes of the proceedings in the criminal cases involving Sison and her group issued by !ranch #+) and !ranch ))+ of the R8/ in Jue6on /ity sho ing that Atty. ?ra for sometime thereafter. #+ Upon being re>uired by the /ourt to comment on the complaint against him ithin #+ days from notice.!P) for investigation.## 8he /ourt granted his re>uest and allo ed him an e'tension totalling 2+ days. ?ra&s disbarment on the ground of his violation of the trust. . and praying for Atty. )++4. that Atty. !ut despite the lapse of the e'tended period. 1e further told them that as far as he already accomplished his professional responsibility to ards them upon the amicable settlement of the cases bet een them and . !ut they did not hear Furing the hearings in the R8/. Atty./S /orporation had perpetrated. 8his forced them to engage another la yer. rote to him on September (. ?ra had visited Sison. 5 ith Sison and her cohorts. report . Samson e'ecuted an affidavit alleging the foregoing antecedents.them to li>uidate the property among themselves. Si-atuna Killage. ?ra negotiated as their counsel as already under the name of !an./S /orporation. had terminated the la yerBclient relationship bet een him and Samson and his group= and that on September #. ?ra to sho dealt ith or held in contempt for such failure to submit his comment. and Sison and her .$ *n Ianuary )+. ?ra several times sought the e'tension of his period to file the comment to supposedly enable him to collate documents relevant to his comment. 1o ever.n this regard. )++0 five copies of a deed of absolute sale involving the property. Jue6on /ity as borne out by the blotter logboo.t too. cause hy he should not be disciplinarily . an inmate in the @emale Formitory in /amp Garingal. )++5.some period of negotiations bet een them and Atty. )++2 indicating that Atty.

Samson charged Atty.n his petition for disbarment.B)++%B#$4.t is respectfully recommended that respondent be SUSP?3F?F from the for a period of si' (5) months and WAR3?F that a repetition of the same or similar act more severe penalty. .nvestigating /ommissioner of the . 8he la yerBclient relationship did not . Rule #0$B! of the Rules of Court. . )) 1o ever.. ?ra ith violating /anon #4 of the Code of Professional Responsibilit& for representing conflicting interests by accepting the responsibility of representing Sison in the cases similar to those in hich he had underta-en to represent Samson and his group.nvestigating /ommissioner recommended that Atty. ?ra&s motion for reconsideration and affirming Resolution 3o. care and devotion.. and for failing to champion his clients& cause ith holehearted fidelity.!PB/!F) found Atty.#4 . complainant herein. #5 the . 8he . Atty. )+#).. ?ra&s legal assistance. *n Iune $.and recommendation. ith the modification that Atty. and denied the motion for its lac.nvestigating /ommissioner of the . because he remained dutyBbound to see to it that the settlement implemented= that he also had the obligation to appear in the criminal cases until their termination= and that his acceptance of the engagement to appear in behalf of Sison invited suspicion of his doubleBdealing and unfaithfulness. )++) as un arranted. the /ourt merely noted the manifestation. )+ denying Atty. NK.!P !oard of Movernors passed Resolution 3o. on 3ovember )5. 1e had drafted the demand letters and the complaintBaffidavit that became the bases for the filing of the estafa charges against Sison and the others in the R8/ in Jue6on /ity. care and devotion.)# *n *ctober #%. not ithstanding that Sison as the very same person hom Samson and his group had accused ith Atty. practice of la ith competence and diligence and champion the latter&s cause ith ould merit a holehearted fidelity. NNB)+#)B#(+.!P /ommission on !ar Fiscipline (. ?ra&s contention that the la yerBclient relationship ended hen Samson and his group entered into the compromise settlement ith Sison on April )0. ?ra be suspended from the practice of la months.of merit. ?ra filed a Manifestation and Motion (With "eave of /ourt). #$ the . )++%.!P !oard of Movernors adopted and approved the report and recommendation of the . for failing to serve his clients ith competence and diligence. 8he ..n Resolution 3o. ?ra&s claim that his legal services as counsel for Samson and his group had terminated on April )0. Atty.n his report and recommendation dated *ctober #.#( . it is clear that respondent is guilty of misconduct for representing conflicting interests.!P. failing to serve his client. 8he .!PB/!F.!P !oard of Movernors then for arded the case to the /ourt pursuant to Section #)(b).nvestigating /ommissioner observed that the evidence did not sustain Atty. )++0 upon the e'ecution of the compromise settlement of the criminal cases= that he even admitted during the mandatory conference that there #% as no formal termination of as duly his legal services= that his professional obligation to ards Samson and his group as his clients did not end upon e'ecution of the settlement agreement. NK. )+#). )+#). ?ra guilty of misconduct for representing conflicting interests. the . )++%. )0 R86347 We affirm the findings of the .B)++%B#$4 passed on *ctober #$. ?ra be suspended from the practice of la for t o years. vi1A cralavvonlinela library for si' @rom the foregoing.

(tt&. )( 8he prohibition against conflict of interest rests on five rationales. 8he test ill be opposed by him hen he is 9 hether or not in behalf of one client. there is conflict of interests if the hich ill in7uriously affect his first client in relation to use against his hether ill be called upon in his ne ill re>uire the attorney to perform an act hich he represents him and also relation first client any -no ledge ac>uired through their connection. .)% the /ourt discussed the concept of conflict of interest in this 8here is conflict of interest iseA cralavvonline la library hen a la yer represents inconsistent interests of t o or more opposing parties. )5 .terminate as of then. @ourth.+0.n Hornilla v. but also because the compromise . a client has a legal right to have the la yer safeguard the client&s confidential information '''. see-s to assure clients that their la yers ill represent them ill prevent an attorney from the full discharge of his duty of undivided fidelity and cralavvonline la library ith undivided loyalty. this argument argues for the other client. but it is his duty to oppose it for the other client. ill be used.ould have applied only to the civil aspect. @inally. ' ' '. if he argues for one client. . @irst. for the fact remained that he still needed to oversee the implementation of the settlement as ell as to proceed ith the criminal cases until they ere dismissed or other ise concluded by the trial court. such as by inducing a client to ma-e a gift to . 8hird.n brief. for the un avering loyalty displayed to his clients li-e ise served the ends of 7ustice.< Atty. complicating the process of ta-ing proof and compromise adversary argumentation ' ' '. rendered as follo sA ' ' '. conflicts rules help ensure that la yers the la yer '''. ?ra thus o ed to Samson and his group entire devotion to their genuine interest. Preventing use of confidential client information against the interests of the client. a la yer might appear on both sides of the litigation. it is the la yer&s duty to fight for an issue or claim. either to benefit the la yer&s personal interest.< 8his rule covers not only cases in but also those in any matter in hich no confidence has been besto ed or retainer hether he acceptance of the ne hich confidential communications have been confided. the client&s e'pectation of effective representation ' ' ' could be compromised. Salunat. .)4 1e as e'pected to e'ert his best efforts and ability to preserve the clients& cause. A client is entitled to be represented by a la yer hom the client can trust. )$ ill not e'ploit clients. /anon #4 of the Code of Professional Responsibilit& provides thatA 9A la yer shall not represent conflicting interests e'cept by ritten consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts. Also. in aid of some other client. . some conflictBofBinterest rules protect interests of the legal system in obtaining ade>uate presentations to tribunals.)2 Rule #4.n the absence of such rules. Another test of the inconsistency of interests is the acceptance of a ne loyalty to his client or invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double dealing in the performance thereof. the prohibition against conflicts of interest see-s to enhance the effectiveness of legal representation. or to foster an assumed public purpose is facilitated through conflicts rules that reduce the opportunity for such abuse.t is also relevant to indicate that the e'ecution 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 as still re>uired. and e'cluded the criminal aspect pursuant to Article )+02 of the Civil Code. the la in itself. 8o the e'tent that a conflict of interest undermines the independence of the la yer&s professional 7udgment or inhibits a la yer from or-ing ith appropriate vigor in the client&s behalf. for e'ample.nstilling such confidence is an ob7ective important Second. and arm 6eal in the maintenance and defense of their rights.

05 . including the the relationship must be treated as sacred and guarded encouraged to entrust their secrets to their la yers. ?RA guilty of violating Rule #4. 00 /ontrary to Atty.< 8he la yer&s highest and most un>uestioned duty is to protect the client at all ha6ards and costs even to himself. ith the termination of the litigation. .t $HEREFORE. or to advice Sison to engage another la yer for herself. as either to outrightly decline representing and entering his appearance as counsel for Sison. and /anon #% of the Code of Professional Responsibilit&= and S+SPEN#S him from the practice of la years effective upon his receipt of this decision. tt. E#G R#O O. the la yer learns all the facts connected clientLs case. Gno ledge and information gathered in the course of ith care.0# 8hroughout the course of a la yerBclient relationship. ?ra to have done he did neither.+0 of /anon #4. ith more severely. 04 8he protection given to the client is perpetual and does not cease even survives the death of the client. the most ethical thing for Atty. . 02 . one of trust and confidence of the highest degree. but also to avoid the appearance of treachery and doubleBdealing.. a la yer may only hose interest is directly adverse to any of his present or former clients. for only then can litigants be hich is paramount in the administration of 7ustice. ?ven after the severance of the relation. 3or should the la yer disclose or use any of the client&s confidences ac>uired in the previous relation. or by any other change of relation bet een them. a la yer should not do anything that ill in7uriously affect his former client in any matter in hich the la yer previously represented the client. therefore. the /ourt FIN#S and PRONO+N"ES Atty. "et copies of this decision be included in the personal record of *ffice of the !ar /onfidant. and should no suffer the proper sanction. therefore. ?ra&s illBconceived attempt to e'plain his disloyalty to Samson and his group. 0+ 8he rule is grounded in the fiduciary obligation of loyalty.n the absence of the e'press consent from Samson and his group after full disclosure to them of the conflict of interest.n the same be allo ed to represent a client involving the same or a substantially related matter that is materially adverse to the former client only if the former client consents to it after consultation. ?FMARF* *. 0) 8he nature of that relationship is. ith the ea. ER and entered in his file in the ith a arning that his commission of a similar offense for t o ill be dealt . 8he spirit behind this rule is that the client&s confidence once given should not be stripped by the mere e'piration of the professional employment.t behooves la yers not only to -eep inviolate the client&s confidence.8he rule prohibiting conflict of interest client as fashioned to prevent situations herein a la yer ould be representing a ay. the termination of the attorneyBclient relationship does not 7ustify a la yer to represent an interest adverse to or in conflict ith that of the former client.n this regard. nor is it affected by the client&s ceasing to employ the attorney and retaining another.and strong points of the case. . Unfortunately. /anon #% of the Code of Professional Responsibilit& e'pressly declares thatA 9A la yer o es fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful