CONFLICT OF INTEREST IN A REGULAR LAWYER-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP

By Emily Santiago

What is conflict of interest?

There is conflict of Interest if there is inconsistency in the interests of two or more

opposing parties.

Tests in determining conflicting interests (Pineda, 2009):

1. Whether the acceptance of a new relation would prevent the full discharge
of a lawyer’s duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty to the client
2. Whether the lawyer would be called upon in the new relation to use again
a former client any confidential information acquired through their
connection or previous employment
3. Whether the lawyer’s argument for one client has to be opposed by that
same lawyer in arguing for the other client

Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states:

A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by a written
consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts.

Lim Jr. Villarosa

Facts:

 Humberto C. Lim Jr. filed a verified complaint for disbarment against

respondent Atty. Nicanor V. Villarosa
 On February 19, 2002, respondent moved for the consolidation of the said
complaint with the following substantially interrelated cases earlier filed
with the First Division of this Court:
o 1. Administrative Case No. 5463: Sandra F. Vaflor v. Atty.
Adoniram P. Pamplona and Atty. Nicanor V. Villarosa;
o 2. Administrative Case No. 5502: Daniel A. Jalandoni v. Atty.
Nicanor V. Villarosa.
 In a resolution dated February 24, 2003, this Court considered
Administrative Case No. 5463 closed and terminated. On February 4,
2004, considering the pleadings filed in Administrative Case No. 5502, the
Court resolved:
o (a) to NOTE the notice of the resolution dated September 27, 2003
of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines dismissing the case against
respondent for lack of merit; and
o (b) to DENY, for lack of merit, the petition filed by complainant
praying that the resolution of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
dismissing the instant case be reviewed and that proper sanctions
be imposed upon respondent
 No motion for reconsideration of the aforesaid denial in Administrative
Case No. 5502 appears in the records. The Court is now called upon to
determine the merits of this remaining case (A.C. No. 5303) against
respondent:
 That respondent is a practicing lawyer and a member of the Integrated Bar
of the Philippines, Bacolod City, Negros Occidental Chapter…. That
sometime on September 19, 1997, Lumot A. Jalandoni,
Chairman/President of PRC was sued before RTC, Branch 52 in Civil
Case No. 97-9865
 The latter engaged the legal services of herein respondent who formally
entered his appearance on October 2, 1997 as counsel for the defendants
Lumot A. Jalandoni/Totti Anlap Gargoles
 Respondent as a consequence of said Attorney-Client relationship
represented Lumot A. Jalandoni et al in the entire proceedings of said
case. Utmost trust and confidence was reposed on said counsel, hence
delicate and confidential matters involving all the personal circumstances
of his client were entrusted to the respondent.
 That it was respondent who exclusively handled the entire proceedings of
afore-cited Civil Case No. 97-9865 [and] presented Lumot A. Jalandoni as
his witness prior to formally resting his case. However, on April 27,
1999 respondent, without due notice prior to a scheduled hearing,
surprisingly filed a Motion to withdraw as counsel, one day before its
scheduled hearing on April 28, 1999…. A careful perusal of said Motion to
Withdraw as Counsel will conclusively show that no copy thereof was
furnished to Lumot A. Jalandoni, neither does it bear her conformity
 The far reaching effects of the untimely and unauthorized withdrawal by
respondent caused irreparable damage and injury to Lumot A. Jalandoni,
et al; a highly meritorious case in favor of his client suddenly [suffered]
unexpected defeat.
 That the grounds alleged by respondent for his withdrawal as counsel of
Lumot A. Jalandoni, et al. was that he is [a] retained counsel of Dennis G.
Jalbuena and the Fernando F. Gonzaga, Inc. It was Dennis G. Jalbuena
who recommended him to be the counsel of Lumot A. Jalandoni, et al.
 It is worthy to note that from the outset, respondent already knew that
Dennis G. Jalbuena is the son-in-law of Lumot A. Jalandoni being married
to her eldest daughter, Carmen J. Jalbuena.
 Respondent further stated that he cannot refuse to represent Dennis G.
Jalbuena in the case filed against the latter before the City Prosecutors
Office by PRC/Lumot A. Jalandoni due to an alleged retainership
agreement with said Dennis G. Jalbuena.
 On April 06, 1999, twenty-one (21) days prior to respondent’s filing of his
Motion to Withdraw as Counsel of Lumot A. Jalandoni, et al., respondent
entered his appearance with Bacolod City Prosecutor OIC-Vicente C.
Acupan, through a letter expressly stating that effective said date he was
appearing as counsel for both Dennis G. Jalbuena and Carmen J.
 Jalbuena and Vicente Delfin in the “Estafa” case filed by the corporation
(PRC) against them
 Simply stated, as early as April 6, 1999 respondent already appeared for
and in behalf of the Sps. Carmen and Dennis Jalbuena/Vicente Delfin
while concurrently representing Lumot A. Jalandoni, et al. in Civil Case
No. 97-9865
 The corporation’s complaint for estafa (P3,183,5525.00) was filed against
the Sps. Dennis and Carmen J. Jalbuena together with UCPB bank
manager Vicente Delfin. Succeeding events will show that respondent
instead of desisting from further violation of his [lawyer’s] oath regarding
fidelity to his client, with extreme arrogance, blatantly ignored our laws on
Legal Ethics, by palpably and despicably defending the Sps. Dennis and
Carmen J. Jalbuena in all the cases filed against them by PRC through its
duly authorized representatives, before the Public Prosecutors Office,
Bacolod City
 There is no dispute that respondent was able to acquire vast resources of
confidential and delicate information on the facts and circumstances of
[Civil Case No. 97-9865] when Lumot A. Jalandoni was his client … which
knowledge and information was acquired by virtue of lawyer-client
relationship between respondent and his clients.
 Using the said classified information which should have been closely
guarded … respondent did then and there, willfully, unlawfully, feloniously
conspired and confabulated with the Sps. Dennis and Carmen J. Jalbuena
in concocting the despicable and fabricated charges against his former
clients
 Were it not for said fiduciary relation between client and lawyer,
respondent will not be in a position to furnish his conspirator spouses with
confidential information on Lumot A. Jalandoni/PRC, operator of Alhambra
Hotel.
 Adding insult to injury, respondent opted to deliberately withhold the entire
case file including the marked exhibits of the Cabiles case for more than
three (3) months after his untimely unilateral withdrawal therefrom, despite
repeated demands from [his] client.
 Respondent discredited Lim’s claim that he deliberately withheld the
records of the cited civil case. He insisted that it took him just a few days,
not three months, to turn over the records of the case to Lim
 While he admitted an oversight in addressing the notice of the motion to
withdraw as counsel to Mrs. Totti Anlap Gargoles instead of Mrs.
Jalandoni at Hotel Alhambra, he maintained that it was the height of
hypocrisy to allege that Mrs. Jalandoni was not aware of his motion to
withdraw since Mrs. Gargoles is Mrs. Jalandoni’s sister and Hotel
Alhambra is owned by PRC which, in turn, actually belongs to Mrs.
Jalandoni.
 Respondent also argued that no prejudice was suffered by Mrs. Jalandoni
because she was already represented by Atty. Lorenzo S. Alminaza from
the first hearing date
Issue:

 Whether there existed a conflict of interest in the cases represented and

handled by respondent
 Whether or not respondent is guilty of violating Canon 15 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility

Ruling:

 Petitioners alleged that as an offshoot of representing conflicting interests,

breach of attorney-client confidentiality and deliberate withholding of
records were committed by respondent. To effectively unravel the alleged
conflict of interest, we must look into the cases involved.
 In Civil Case No. 97-9865, respondent represented Lumot A. Jalandoni
and Totti Anlap Gargoles. This was a case for the recovery of possession
of property involving Hotel Alhambra, a hotel owned by PRC.
 In BC I.S. No. 99-2192, Lim v. Vicente Delfin, Spouses Dennis and
Carmen Jalbuena, respondent was counsel for Delfin and the spouses
Jalbuena. In this case, plaintiff Cristina Lim sued the spouses Jalbuena
and Delfin on the basis of two checks issued by PRC for the construction
of Hotel Alhambra. The corporate records allegedly reflected that the
contractor, AAQ Sales and Construction (AAQSC), was already paid in full
yet Amy Albert Que of AAQSC still filed a collection case against PRC for
an unpaid balance
 Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) highlights the
need for candor, fairness and loyalty in all the dealings of lawyers with
their clients. Rule 15.03 of the CPR aptly provides:
o Rule 15.03 – A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests
except by written consent of all concerned given after a full
disclosure of the facts.
 Conflict of interest may be determined in this manner:
o There is representation of conflicting interests if the acceptance of
the new retainer will require the attorney to do anything which
will injuriously affect his first client in any matter in which he
represents him and also whether he will be called upon in his new
relation, to use against his first client any knowledge acquired
through their connection
 The rule on conflict of interests covers not only cases in which confidential
communications have been confided but also those in which no
confidence has been bestowed or will be used
 Another test of the inconsistency of interests is whether the acceptance of
a new relation will prevent an attorney from the full discharge of his duty of
undivided fidelity and loyalty to his client or invite suspicion of
unfaithfulness or double-dealing in the performance thereof, and also
whether he will be called upon in his new relation to use against his first
 client any knowledge acquire in the previous employment. The first part of
the rule refers to cases in which the opposing parties are present clients
either in the same action or in a totally unrelated case; the second part
pertains to those in which the adverse party against whom the attorney
appears is his former client in a matter which is related, directly or
indirectly, to the present controversy
 The rule prohibits a lawyer from representing new clients whose interests
oppose those of a former client in any manner, whether or not they are
parties in the same action or in totally unrelated cases. The cases here
directly or indirectly involved the parties’ connection to PRC, even if
neither PRC nor Lumot A. Jalandoni was specifically named as party-
litigant in some of the cases mentioned.
 Respondent Atty. Nicanor V. Villarosa is hereby found GUILTY of violating
Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and
is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one (1) year, effective upon
receipt of this decision, with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the
same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.

Perez vs. De la Torre

Facts:

 In a letter-complaint, complainant Nestor Perez charged respondent Atty.

Danilo de la Torre with misconduct or conduct unbecoming of a lawyer for
representing conflicting interests.
 Perez alleged that he is the barangay captain of Binanuaanan,
Calabanga, Camarines Sur; that in December 2001, several suspects for
murder and kidnapping for ransom, among them Sonny Boy Ilo and Diego
Avila, were apprehended and jailed by the police authorities; that
respondent went to the municipal building of Calabanga where Ilo and
Avila were being detained and made representations that he could secure
their freedom if they sign the prepared extrajudicial confessions; that
unknown to the two accused, respondent was representing the heirs of the
murder victim; that on the strength of the extrajudicial confessions, cases
were filed against them, including herein complainant who was implicated
in the extrajudicial confessions as the mastermind in the criminal activities
for which they were being charged.
 Respondent denied the accusations against him. He explained that while
being detained at the Calabanga Municipal Police Jail, Avila sought his
assistance in drafting an extrajudicial confession regarding his
involvement in the crimes of kidnapping for ransom, murder and robbery.
 He advised Avila to inform his parents about his decision to make an
extrajudicial confession, apprised him of his constitutional rights and of the
possibility that he might be utilized as a state-witness.
 Respondent claimed that when Ilo sought his assistance in executing his
extrajudicial confession, he conferred with Ilo in the presence of his
 parents; and only after he was convinced that Ilo was not under undue
compulsion did he assist the accused in executing the extrajudicial
confession.

Issue:

 Whether or not there was conflicting interest

Ruling:

 Yes. There is conflict of interests when a lawyer represents inconsistent

interests of two or more opposing parties.
 The test is whether or not in behalf of one client, it is the lawyers duty to
fight for an issue or claim, but it is his duty to oppose it for the other client.
 In brief, if he argues for one client, this argument will be opposed by him
when he argues for the other client. This rule covers not only cases in
which confidential communications have been confided, but also those in
which no confidence has been bestowed or will be used.
 There is a representation of conflicting interests if the acceptance of the
new retainer will require the attorney to do anything which will injuriously
affect his first client in any matter in which he represents him and also
whether he will be called upon in his new relation, to use against his first
client any knowledge acquired through their connection.
 Atty. Danilo de la Torre is found GUILTY of violation of Rule 15.03 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility for representing conflicting
interests. He is SUSPENDED for THREE YEARS from the practice of law,
effective upon his receipt of this Decision. He is WARNED that a
repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.

Defense that prospective client has no lawyer to turn to is not acceptable.

Gonzales vs. Cabucana

Facts:

 Gonzales filed a petition before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)
alleging that: she was the complainant in a case for sum of money and
damages filed before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) of
Santiago City, docketed as Civil Case No. 1-567 where she was
represented by the law firm CABUCANA, CABUCANA, DE GUZMAN AND
CABUCANA LAW OFFICE, with Atty. Edmar Cabucana handling the case
and herein respondent as an associate/partner
 On February 26, 2001, a decision was rendered in the civil case ordering
the losing party to pay Gonzales the amount of P17,310.00 with interest
and P6,000.00 as attorneys fees; Sheriff Romeo Gatcheco, failed to fully
implement the writ of execution issued in connection with the judgment
 which prompted Gonzales to file a complaint against the said sheriff with
this Court;
 in September 2003, Sheriff Gatcheco and his wife went to the house of
Gonzales; they harassed Gonzales and asked her to execute an affidavit
of desistance regarding her complaint before this Court; Gonzales
thereafter filed against the Gatchecos criminal cases for trespass, grave
threats, grave oral defamation, simple coercion and unjust vexation;
notwithstanding the pendency of Civil Case No. 1-567, where respondents
law firm was still representing Gonzales, herein respondent represented
the Gatchecos in the cases filed by Gonzales against the said spouses;
respondent should be disbarred from the practice of law since
respondents acceptance of the cases of the Gatchecos violates the
lawyer-client relationship between complainant and respondents law firm
and renders respondent liable under the Code of Professional
Responsibility
 In his Answer, respondent averred: He never appeared and represented
complainant in Civil Case No. 1-567 since it was his brother, Atty. Edmar
Cabucana who appeared and represented Gonzales in said case.
 He admitted that he is representing Sheriff Gatcheco and his wife in the
cases filed against them but claimed that his appearance is pro bono and
that the spouses pleaded with him as no other counsel was willing to take
their case.
 He entered his appearance in good faith and opted to represent the
spouses rather than leave them defenseless.
 When the Gatchecos asked for his assistance, the spouses said that the
cases filed against them by Gonzales were merely instigated by a high
ranking official who wanted to get even with them for their refusal to testify
in favor of the said official in another case.
 At first, respondent declined to serve as counsel of the spouses as he too
did not want to incur the ire of the high-ranking official, but after realizing
that he would be abdicating a sworn duty to delay no man for money or
malice, respondent entered his appearance as defense counsel of the
spouses free of any charge.
 Not long after, the present complaint was crafted against respondent
which shows that respondent is now the subject of a demolition job.
 The civil case filed by Gonzales where respondents brother served as
counsel is different and distinct from the criminal cases filed by
complainant against the Gatcheco spouses, thus, he did not violate any
canon on legal ethics.

Issue:
 Whether or not there was conflict of interest

Ruling:
  Yes. The representation of opposing clients in said cases, though
unrelated, constitutes conflict of interests or, at the very least, invites
suspicion of double-dealing which this Court cannot allow.
 Respondent further argued that it was his brother who represented
Gonzales in the civil case and not him, thus, there could be no conflict of
interests. Court does not agree.
 As respondent admitted, it was their law firm which represented Gonzales
in the civil case. Such being the case, the rule against representing
conflicting interests applies.
 The claim of respondent that he acted in good faith and with honest
intention will also not exculpate him as such claim does not render the
prohibition inoperative.
 In the same manner, his claim that he could not turn down the spouses as
no other lawyer is willing to take their case cannot prosper as it is settled
that while there may be instances where lawyers cannot decline
representation they cannot be made to labor under conflict of interest
between a present client and a prospective one.
 Granting also that there really was no other lawyer who could handle the
spouses case other than him, still he should have observed the
requirements laid down by the rules by conferring with the prospective
client to ascertain as soon as practicable whether the matter would involve
a conflict with another client then seek the written consent of all concerned
after a full disclosure of the facts.
 This respondent failed to do thus exposing himself to the charge of
double-dealing.

Gamilla vs. Mariño Jr

Facts:

 Atty. Eduardo Marino Jr. was the president of the UST Faculty Union.
 There’s a long history of collective bargaining agreement between UST
and UST Faculty Union.
 During the series of agreements between UST and the UST Faculty
Union, Atty. Marino was removed from his position but continued to serve
as a lawyer for the UST Faculty Union.
 In the end, the UST Faculty won and was awarded 42 million pesos for
back wages, salaries, additional compensations, etc.
 Complainants are members of the UST Faculty Union questioning the lack
of transparency in the disbursement of the monetary benefits (42M) for the
faculty members, and prays for the expulsion of Atty. Marino for failure to
account for the balance of 42M ceded to them by UST and the attorney’s
fees amounting to 4.2M which he deducted from the benefits allotted to
faculty members.

Issue:
  Whether or not there was conflict of interest

Ruling:

 Yes. He failed to avoid conflict of interest where he negotiated for a

compromise agreement wherein he played the diverse roles of union
president, union attorney, and interested party, being one of the dismissed
employees seeking his own restitution and thereafter, when he obtained
the attorney’s fees without full prior disclosure of the circumstances
justifying such claim to the members of the union.

Catalan Jr. vs. Silvosa

Facts:

 Atty. Silvosa was an Assistant Provincial Prosecutor of Bukidnon and a

Prosecutor in Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 10, Malaybalay City,
Bukidnon.
 Atty. Silvosa appeared as public prosecutor in Criminal Case No. 10256-
00, “People of the Philippines v. SPO2 Elmor Esperon y Murillo, et al.”
(Esperon case), for the complex crime of double frustrated murder, in
which case Atty. Catalan was one of the private complainants.
 Atty. Catalan took issue with Atty. Silvosa’s manner of prosecuting the
case, and requested the Provincial Prosecutor to relieve Atty. Silvosa.

Issue:

 Whether or not there was conflict of interest

Ruling:

 Yes. Atty. Silvosa’s attempts to minimize his involvement in the same

caseon two occasions can only be described as desperate.
 He claims his participation as public prosecutor was only to appear in the
arraignment and in the pre-trial conference.
 He likewise claims his subsequent participation, as collaborating counsel,
was limited only to the reinstatement of the original bail.
 Hilado vs. David: An attorney is employed — that is, he is engaged in his
professional capacity as a lawyer or counselor — when he is listening to
his client’s preliminary statement of his case, or when he is giving advice
thereon, just as truly as when he is drawing his client’s pleadings, or
advocating his client’s pleadings, or advocating his client’s cause in open
court.

Seares Jr vs. Gonzales-Alzate

Facts:

 Seares, Jr. asserts that Atty. Gonzales-Alzate thereby violated Canon 15,
Canon 17 and Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility for
negligently handling his election protest, for prosecuting him, her former
client, and for uttering false and hurtful allegations against him. Hence, he
prays that she should be disbarred.
 Seares, Jr. alleges that Atty. Gonzales-Aizate was his legal counsel when
he ran for the position of Municipal Mayor of Dolores, Abra in the May
2007 elections
 He again ran for Municipal Mayor of Dolores, Abra in the May 2010
elections, and won;
 He later learned that his political opponents retained her as their counsel;
that with him barely two months in office, one Carlito Turqueza charged
him with abuse of authority, oppression and grave misconduct in the
Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Abra;
 that she represented Turqueza as counsel; and that she intentionally
made false and hurtful statements in the memorandum she prepared in
that administrative case in order to attack him.
 Atty. Gonzales-Alzate refutes the charge that she represented conflicting
interests by explaining that: (a) she was engaged as an attorney in the
May 2010 elections only by Dominic Valera (a candidate for Municipal
Mayor of Bangued, Abra) and by President Aquino, neither of whom was
Seares, Jr.’s political opponent; (b) Carlito Turqueza used to be a political
ally of Seares, Jr.; (c) she disclosed to Turqueza her having once acted as
a counsel of Seares, Jr.; (d) Seares, Jr. did not object to her legal
representation of Turqueza;15 and (e) the 2007 election protest that she
handled for Seares, Jr. was unrelated to the administrative complaint that
Turqueza brought against Seares, Jr. in 2010.

Issue:

 Whether or not there was conflict of interest

Ruling:

 Atty. Gonzales-Alzate’s legal representation of Turqueza neither resulted

in her betrayal of the fidelity and loyalty she owed to Seares, Jr. as his
former attorney, nor invited the suspicion of unfaithfulness or double
dealing while she was performing her duties as an attorney.
 As it turned out, the charge of representing conflicting interests leveled
against Atty. Gonzales-Alzate was imaginary.
 The charge was immediately unworthy of serious consideration because it
was clear from the start that Atty. Gonzales-Alzate did not take advantage
of her previous engagement by Seares, Jr. in her legal representation of
Turqueza in the latter’s administrative charge against Seares, Jr.
  To constitute the violation, the attorney should be shown to intentionally
use against the former client the confidential information acquired by her
during the previous employment

Conflict of interests may arise in the same action or unrelated actions.

Quiambao vs. Bamba

Facts:

 Quiambao charges Atty. Bamba with violation of CPR for representing

conflicting interests when the latter filed a case against her while he was
at that time representing her in another case, and for committing other
acts of disloyalty and double-dealing.
 Atty. Bamba is the counsel of Allied Investigation Bureau (AIB) and its
president and managing director (Quiambao).
 Atty. Bamba is the counsel of Quaimbao in an ejectment case.
 Later on, Quiambao resigned from AIB.
 While the ejectment case was still ongoing, Atty. Bamba, as the counsel of
AIB, filed a replevin case against Quiambao.

Issue:

 Whether or not Atty. Bamba is guilty of misconduct for representing

conflicting interests in contravention of the basic tenets of the legal
profession.

Ruling:

 Yes.
 His representation of opposing clients in both cases, though unrelated,
obviously constitutes conflict of interest or, at the least, invites suspicion of
double-dealing.
 While the respondent may assert that the complainant expressly
consented to his continued representation in the ejectment case, the
respondent failed to show that he fully disclosed the facts to both his
clients and he failed to present any written consent of the complainant and
AIB as required under Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.

Artezuela vs. Maderazo

Facts:

 Echavia crashed the car he is driving which is owned by Kiyami, but was
registered in the name of Villapez.
  The car rammed into a small carinderia owned by Artezuela. The
destruction of the carinderia caused the cessation its operation, resulting
to her financial dislocation.
 Artezuela incurred debts from her relatives and due to financial
constraints, stopped sending her two children to college.
 Artezuela hired Maderazo in filing a damage suit against Echavia, Villapez
and Kiyami. For his services, Artezuela paid Maderazo 10,000 as
attorney’s fees and 2,000 as filing fee.
 However, the case was dismissed, allegedly upon the instance of the
Artezuela and her husband.
 Because of the dismissal of the case, Artezuela filed a civil case for
damages against the Maderazo. The case was dismissed.
 Artezuela filed for disbarment against the Maderazo. Artezuela argues that
Maderazo engaged in activities inimical to her interests.
 While acting as her counsel, Maderazo prepared Echavia’s Answer to the
Amended Complaint.
 The said document was even printed in Maderazo’s office.
 Artezuela further averred that it was Maderazo who sought the dismissal
of the case, misleading the trial court into thinking that the dismissal was
with her consent.
 Maderazo denied Artezuela’s allegations. However, he admitted that
Echavia’s Answer to the Amended Complaint was printed in his office but
denied having prepared the document and having acted as counsel of
Echavia.
 Case was referred to IBP. IBP investigated the case.
 IBP found Maderazo guilty of representing conflicting interests, in violation
of Canon 15 and Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, as
well as, of Canon 6 of the Code of Professional Ethics

Issue:

 Whether or not there was conflict of interest

Ruling:

 Yes. The Court affirmed the recommendation stating that, even if the
allegations of the petitioners pertaining to the selling of rights without
petitioners consent, the inducement or influence of respondent over atty.
Salva and the fencing of the lot, were not proved due to lack of evidence
to back up the allegations, the court still finds respondent in violation of
Rule 15.03 of Canon 15 by representing conflicting interest, when
respondent represented against the petitioner in the indirect contempt
case against the Sheriff.
 The court states that lawyers owe undivided allegiance to their clients, and
should at all times weigh their actions, especially in their dealings with the
 latter and the public at large. That they must conduct themselves beyond
reproach at all times.
 That due to the divided allegiance of respondent, his divided loyalty
constitutes malpractice which may be punished under sec 27 of rule 138
of the ROC.

Pormento Sr. vs. Pontevedra

Facts:

 In a verified Complaint dated August 7, 1999, Elesio C. Pormento, Sr.

charged Atty. Elias A. Pontevedra with malpractice and misconduct,
praying that on the basis of the facts alleged therein, respondent be
disbarred.
 Complainant alleges that between 1964 and 1994, respondent is his
family's legal counsel having represented him and members of his family
in all legal proceedings in which they are involved. Complainant also
claims that his family's relationship with respondent extends beyond mere
lawyer-client relations as they gave respondent moral, spiritual, physical
and financial support in his different endeavors.
 Based on the allegations in the complaint, the rift between complainant
and respondent began when complainant's counterclaim in Civil Case No.
1648 filed with the Regional Trial Court of Bacolod City was dismissed.
Complainant claims that respondent, who was his lawyer in the said case,
deliberately failed to inform him of the dismissal of his counterclaim
despite receipt of the order of dismissal by the trial court, as a result of
which, complainant was deprived of his right to appeal said order.
 Complainant asserts that he only came to know of the existence of the trial
court's order when the adverse party in the said case extrajudicially
foreclosed the mortgage executed over the parcel of land which is the
subject matter of the suit.
 In order to recover his ownership over the said parcel of land, complainant
was constrained to hire a new lawyer as Atty. Pontevedra refused to
institute an action for the recovery of the subject property.
 Complainant also claims that in order to further protect his rights and
interests over the said parcel of land, he was forced to initiate a criminal
case for qualified theft against the relatives of the alleged new owner of
the said land. Respondent is the counsel of the accused in said case.
Complainant claims that as part of his defense in said criminal case,
respondent utilized pieces of confidential information he obtained from
complainant while the latter is still his client.
 In a separate incident, complainant claims that in 1967, he bought a parcel
of land located at Escalante, Negros Occidental. The Deed of Declaration
of Heirship and Sale of said land was prepared and notarized by
respondent. Since there was another person who claims ownership of the
property, complainant alleges that he heeded respondent's advice to build
 a small house on the property and to allow his (complainant's) nephew
and his family to occupy the house in order for complainant to establish
his possession of the said property.
 Subsequently, complainant's nephew refused to vacate the property
prompting the former to file an ejectment case with the Municipal Trial
Court of Escalante, Negros Occidental, docketed as Civil Case No. 528.
Respondent acted as the counsel of complainant's nephew.
 In his Comment, respondent contends that he was never a direct recipient
of any monetary support coming from the complainant. Respondent
denies complainant's allegation that he (respondent) did not inform
complainant of the trial court's order dismissing the latter's counterclaim in
Civil Case No. 1648. Respondent claims that within two days upon his
receipt of the trial court's order of dismissal, he delivered to complainant a
copy of the said order, apprising him of its contents.
 As to his representation of the persons against whom complainant filed
criminal cases for theft, respondent argues that he honestly believes that
there exists no conflict between his present and former clients' interests as
the cases he handled for these clients are separate and distinct from each
other.
 He further contends that he took up the cause of the accused in the
criminal cases filed by complainant for humanitarian considerations since
said accused are poor and needy and because there is a dearth of
lawyers in their community.
 With respect to the case for ejectment filed by complainant against his
nephew, respondent admits that it was he who notarized the deed of sale
of the parcel of land sold to complainant. However, he contends that what
is being contested in the said case is not the ownership of the subject land
but the ownership of the house built on the said land.

Issue:

 Whether or not there was conflict of interest

Ruling:

 Yes. respondent Atty. Elias A. Pontevedra is found GUILTY of

representing conflicting interests and is hereby FINED in the amount of
Ten Thousand (P10,000.00) Pesos. He is WARNED that a repetition of
the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.
 Jurisprudence instructs that there is a representation of conflicting
interests if the acceptance of the new retainer will require the attorney to
do anything which will injuriously affect his first client in any matter in
which he represents him and also whether he will be called upon in his
new relation, to use against his first client any knowledge acquired through
their connection.
 Another test to determine if there is a representation of conflicting interests
is whether the acceptance of a new relation will prevent an attorney from
the full discharge of his duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty to his client or
invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double dealing in the performance
thereof.
 A lawyer is forbidden from representing a subsequent client against a
former client when the subject matter of the present controversy is related,
directly or indirectly, to the subject matter of the previous litigation in which
he appeared for the former client.
 Conversely, he may properly act as counsel for a new client, with full
disclosure to the latter, against a former client in a matter wholly unrelated
to that of the previous employment, there being in that instance no conflict
of interests.
 Where, however, the subject matter of the present suit between the
lawyer's new client and his former client is in some way connected with
that of the former client's action, the lawyer may have to contend for his
new client that which he previously opposed as counsel for the former
client or to use against the latter information confided to him as his
counsel.
o The reason for the prohibition is found in the relation of attorney
and client, which is one of trust and confidence of the highest
degree.
o A lawyer becomes familiar with all the facts connected with his
client's case.
o He learns from his client the weak points of the action as well as
the strong ones.
o Such knowledge must be considered sacred and guarded with
care.
o No opportunity must be given him to take advantage of the client's
secrets.
o A lawyer must have the fullest confidence of his client.
o For if the confidence is abused, the profession will suffer by the loss
thereof.
 In the present case, we find no conflict of interests when respondent
represented herein complainant's nephew and other members of his
family in the ejectment case, docketed as Civil Case No. 528, and in the
criminal complaint, denominated as I.S. Case No. 99-188, filed by herein
complainant against them. The only established participation respondent
had with respect to the parcel of land purchased by complainant, is that he
was the one who notarized the deed of sale of the said land. On that basis
alone, it does not necessarily follow that respondent obtained any
information from herein complainant that can be used to the detriment of
the latter in the ejectment case he filed.
 While complainant alleges that it was respondent who advised him to
allow his nephew to temporarily occupy the property in order to establish
complainant's possession of said property as against another claimant, no
 corroborating evidence was presented to prove this allegation. Defendant,
in his answer to the complaint for ejectment, raised the issue as to the
right of the vendor to sell the said land in favor of complainant.
 However, we find this immaterial because what is actually in issue in the
ejectment case is not the ownership of the subject lot but the ownership of
the house built on the said lot. Furthermore, the subject matter of I.S.
Case No. 99-188 filed by complainant against his nephew and other
members of his family involves several parts of trucks owned by herein
complainant.
 This case is not in any way connected with the controversy involving said
parcel of land. In fine, with respect to Civil Case No. 528 and I.S. Case
No. 99-188, complainant failed to present substantial evidence to hold
respondent liable for violating the prohibition against representation of
conflicting interests.
 However, we find conflict of interests in respondent's representation of
herein complainant in Civil Case No. 1648 and his subsequent
employment as counsel of the accused in Criminal Case No. 3159.
 The subject matter in Civil Case No. 1648 is Lot 609 located at Escalante,
Negros Occidental, the same parcel of land involved in Criminal Case No.
3159 filed by herein complainant against several persons, accusing them
of theft for allegedly cutting and stealing coconut trees within the premises
of the said lot. Complainant contends that it is in this criminal case that
respondent used confidential information which the latter obtained from
the former in Civil Case No. 1648.

Samson vs. Era