Rolando Pacana vs. Atty.

Maricel Pascual-Lopez
A.C. No. 8243 ​July 24, 2009

Doctrine: ​There is conflict of interest when a lawyer represents inconsistent interests of two or
more opposing parties. The test is whether or not in behalf of one client, it is the lawyer’s duty to
fight for an issue or claim, but it is his duty to oppose it for the other client. There is also conflict
if the acceptance of new retainer will require the attorney to perform an act which will
injuriously affect his first client in any matter in which he represents him.

Facts:
● Pacana filed an administrative complaint against Atty. Maricel Pascual for violation of
the provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility
● Pacana was the Operations Director for Multitel Communications Corporation (MCC).
MCC changed its name to Precedent Communications Corporation.Their investment
schemes failed that’s why their investors “besieged” them with demand letters. He
alleges that the earned the ire of the investors because he was made the assignee of
majority of the shares of Stock and appointed as trustee of 30M fund.
● Pacana and Pascual are members of religious organization Couples for Christ. Pacana
sought the advice of Pascual. Pacana disclosed all his involvement and interests in
Precedent. Pascual gave legal advice to complainant and even helped prepare standard
quitclaims (legal instrument used to transfer interest in real property). But NO
RETAINER AGREEMENT WAS EXECUTED.
● HOWEVER, he received a demand letter from Pascual representing the defrauded
investors of Multitel, asking for the return and immediate settlement of the funds invested
by “client’s” of Pascual.
● They continued to communicate and exchange information regarding the demands of
investors of Multitel. ​Pascual gave regular advice, helped prepare standard quitclaims,
solicited money and properties from Pacana to pay the creditors and even discussed a
collection case for the company.
○ Respondent impressed that she can work closely with officials in government
(AMLC, DOJ, NBI, BID, SEC)
○ Respondent asked money from Pacana for “safekeeping” to be “used when only
for his case when necessary”. Gave 900K, and 1M.
○ Complainant went to US, he received emails and sms from Pascual warning him
not to return to the PH because the President of Multitel was arrested and that 10
arrest warrants and a hold departure order were issued against him.
○ Pacana looked for another lawyer but Pascual assured him. Pacana returned to
PH. On the eve of his departure, he was informed by Pascual that he has been
 cleared by NBI and BID. Pascual was evading him. Asked for accounting, got
confused, was not given adequate answer
● Pacana’s contention: lawyer-client relationship was established between him and Pascual
even though no formal relationship was established.
● Pascual: denies being lawyer for Precedent and that there was no formal engagement. She
insisted that she represented investors.

Issue: ​W/N Atty. Pascual is guilty of conduct representing conflict of interests

Decision: ​DISBARRED

Held:
● YES. There is a lawyer-client relationship between the Pascual and Pacana even though
there is no contract or formal agreement. To establish the relation, it is sufficient that the
advice and assistance of an attorney is sought and received in any matter. The contract
may be express or implied. Since Pacana sought advice from Pascual and told her
confidential informations, then there is lawyer-client relationship. Hence, given that there
is lawyer-client relationship, she should not represent the investors of Multitel who has
adverse claims.
○ There is conflict of interest when a lawyer represents inconsistent interests of the
two or more opposing parties. The test is whether or not in behalf of one client, it
is the lawyer’s duty to fight for an issue or claim, but it is his duty to oppose it for
the other client. There is also conflict if the acceptance of new retainer will
require the attorney to perform an act which will injuriously affect his first client
in any matter in which he represents him.
○ Respondent took advantage of complainants hapless situation, initially, by giving
him legal advice and, later on, by soliciting money and properties from him.
Thereafter, respondent impressed upon complainant that she had acted with
utmost sincerity in helping him divest all the properties entrusted to him in order
to absolve him from any liability. But simultaneously, she was also doing the
same thing to impress upon her clients, the party claimants against Multitel, that
she was doing everything to reclaim the money they invested with Multitel.