DR. GIL Y. GAMILLA, NORMA S. CALAGUAS, IRMA E.

POTENCIANO, EDITHA
OCAMPO, LUZ DE GUZMAN, GLICERIA BALDRES, FERDINAND LIMOS, MA.
LOURDES C. MEDINA, HIDELITA GABO, CORAZON CUI, REMEDIOS T. GARCIA,
RENE ARNEJO, RENE LUIS TADLE, LAURA ABARA, PHILIP AGUINALDO,
BENEDICTA ALAVA, LEONCIO CASAL, CARMELITA ESPINA, ZENAIDA
FAMORCA, CELSO NIERA, CESAR REYES, NATIVIDAD SANTOS and MAFEL
YSRAEL, complainants, vs. ATTY. EDUARDO J. MARIÑO JR., respondent.
Facts:
Atty. Eduardo J. Marino Jr., A.C No. 4763, March 20, 2003 FACTS: In 1986,
respondent Atty. Marino, as president of the UST Faculty union, with other union
officers, entered into a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with the UST
management for the provision of economic benefits amounting to P35M. The
CBA expired in 1988. In 1989, UST faculty members went on strike and UST
dismissed 16 officers and directors from office. Atty. Marino was one of these
officers. The court ordered their reinstatement with back wages. In 1990, Labor
Secretary Ruben Torres prescribed the terms and conditions of a 5-year CBA
between UST and the Union, retroactive to 1988. The UST
administration and the Union also entered into a compromise agreement, where
it was agreed that the former would pay P7M to the latter (P5M for the back
wages and other claims, and P2M to satisfy the remaining obligations under the
1986 CBA). However, only the P5M allotted for the back wages was immediately
paid. The P2M allotted for the remaining obligations was deferred. In 1992, UST
and the Union executed a memorandum agreement (1992 MOA) to settle the
salary increases and other benefits for the period of June 1991 to May 1993.
P42M was allotted for the settlement. The agreement provided that: (1) the
benefits accruing from June 1991 to October 1992 would be taken from the
P42M allotment which UST would release directly to the faculty members, (2)
UST would then cede the remaining amount to the Union to disburse to cover
the benefits from November 1992 to May 1993, (3) the P2M agreed upon the
1990 compromise agreement would be taken from the P42M allotment, and (4)
Atty. Marino‘s attorney‘s fees (P4.2M) would be taken from the P42M allotment.
Complainants, who are Union members, questioned the alleged lack of
transparency in the management and disbursement of the monetary benefits
among the Union officers and directors. In October 1995, they initiated a
complaint with the Office of the Regional Director (NCR-DOLE). In November
1996, they initiated another complaint with the same office. Both complaints
prayed for the expulsion of the Union officers and directors (led by Atty. Marino)
for the failure to account for the P42M allotment. In July 1997, complainants filed
the instant complaint for disbarment against Atty. Marino, accusing him of: (1)
compromising their entitlements under the 1986 CBA without their knowledge,
consent or ratification, for only P2M when they could have received more than
P9M, (2) failing to account for the P7M he, with the other officers and directors,
received under the 1990 compromise agreement, (3) lack of transparency in the
administration and distribution of the remaining balance of the P42M allotment
under the 1992 MOA, and (4) refusing to remit and account the P4.2M
denominated as attorney‘s fees. Complainants accused Atty. Marino for
violating: (1) Rules 1.01 and 1.02 of Canon 1, (2) Rule 15.05 of Canon 15, (3)
Rules 16.01, 16.02 and 16.03 of Canon 16, and (4) Rule 20.04 of Canon 20, of the
Code of Professional Responsibility. IBP Commissioner Lydia Navarro issued a
Report and the IBP Board of Governors released a Resolution, both of which
found the complaint meritorious and suspended Atty. Marino from the practice
of law until he can give the detailed accounting of the questioned remittances.
In May 1999, the Regional Director issued an Order for the expulsion of Atty.
Marino and the other officers and directors. In March 2000, the Bureau of Labor
Relations set aside the Order because there was full and adequate accounting
of the P42M allotment, but also directed the distribution of the P4.2M among
the faculty members. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the Bureau
of Labor Relations. The decision is appealed to the Supreme Court. In
September 2002, the detailed Report and Recommendation of IBP
Commissioner Navarro and the IBP Resolution lifted Atty. Marino‘s suspension
for sufficiently accounting for the funds.
Z
ISSUE: WON Atty. Marino violated Canon 15, among other laws found in the
Code of Professional Responsibility.

HELD: Yes. Atty. Marino violated Canon 15, among other laws found in the Code
of Professional Responsibility. He is reprimanded for his misconduct with a
warning that a more drastic punishment will be imposed on him upon repetition
of the same act. RATIO: Canon 15 provides that a lawyer shall observe candor,
fairness and loyalty in all his dealings and transactions with his clients.‖ Canon
15 requires a lawyer to have a bigger dose of service- oriented conscience and a
little less of self-interest. A lawyer or any other person occupying fiduciary
relations respecting property or persons is utterly disabled from acquiring for his
own benefit the property committed to his custody for management. The rule
stands on the moral obligation to refrain from placing oneself in positions that
ordinarily excite conflict between self-interest and integrity. Necessarily, a
lawyer cannot continue representing a client in an action or any proceeding
against a party even with the client's consent after the lawyer brings suit in his
own behalf against the same defendant if it is
uncertain whether the defendant will be able to satisfy both judgments. A lawyer
is not authorized to have financial stakes in the subject matter of the suit
brought in behalf of his client. The test of conflict of interest among lawyers 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."In the
same manner, it is undoubtedly a conflict of interests for an attorney to put
himself in a position where self-interest tempts, or worse, actually impels him to
do less than his best for his client. In the case at bar, although there was an
adequate accounting for the disbursement of the funds the Union received
through the series of agreements with the UST management, the court believes
that Atty. Mariano had ethical lapses in his transactions. He failed to avoid
conflict of interests: First, when he negotiated for the compromise agreement
wherein he played the diverse roles of union president, union attorney and
interested party (being oneof the dismissed employees seeking restitution); and
second, when he he obtained P4.2M as attorney‘s fees without full disclosure of
the circumstances justifying such claim. As one of the 16 union officers and
directors seeking compensation from UST for their illegal dismissal, Atty.
Mariano had a conflict of interest when he also acted as concurrent lawyer and
president of the Union in forging the compromise agreement. Atty. Marino
omitted that basic sense of fidelity to steer clear of situations that put his loyalty
and devotion to his client, the faculty members of UST, open to question. As the
lawyer and president of the Union, he was duty bound to protect and advance
the interest of union members and the bargaining unit above his own. This
obligation was jeopardized when his personal interest as one of the dismissed
employees of UST complicated the negotiation process and eventually resulted
in the lopsided compromise agreement that rightly or wrongly brought money to
him and the other dismissed union officers and directors, seemingly or
otherwise at the expense of the faculty members. Atty. Marino ought to have
disclosed to the members of the Union his interest in the compromise
agreement as one of the dismissed union officers seeking compensation for the
claim of back wages and other forms of damages, and also the reasons for
reducing the claim of the faculty members from more than P9M to only P2M. As
the record shows, the explanations for respondent's actions were disclosed only
years after the consummation of the compromise agreement, particularly only
after the instant complaint for disbarment was filed against him, when the
accounting should have been forthcoming either before or during the settlement
of the labor case against the management of UST. Equally important, since
respondent and the other union officers and directors were to get for
themselves a lion's share of the compromise as they ultimately did, Atty. Marino
should have unambiguously divulged and made clear to his client the compelling
probability of conflict of interests. He should have voluntarily turned over the
reins of legal representation to another lawyer who could have acted on the
matter with a deep sense of impartiality over the several claims against UST and
an unfettered commitment to the cause of the faculty members.
Kupers v. Hontanosas A.C. No. 5704, May 8, 2009
Facts:  Complainant claimed that as counsel for Hans and Vivian Busse,
respondent had prepared a memorandum of agreement and a contract of lease
between the spouses Busse and Hochstrasser, a Swiss national. Under said
agreement, Hochstrasser would lease Vivian Busseʼs property in Alcoy, Cebu for
fifty (50) years, renewable for another fifty (50) years. Complainant added that
respondent had acted despite conflict of interest on his part since the Spouses
Busse and Hochstrasser were both his clients. Respondent prepared a similar
agreement and lease contract between the spouses Busse and Karl Emberger, a
Swiss national, over another parcel of land in Alcoy, Cebu. This time the lease
contract was for a period of forty nine (49) years renewable for another forty
nine (49) years. All four (4) documents were notarized by respondent. It was
also averred that respondent drafted two deeds of sale over the leased
properties of Spouses Busse to Naomie Melchior, a Filipina, and Karl Novak, a
German National. The Commissioner found that respondent had prepared and
notarized contracts that violated Presidential Decree No. 471 (P.D. No. 471)
since leases of private lands by aliens cannot exceed twenty five (25) years,
renewable for another twenty five (25) years. Nonetheless, complainant failed to
prove the other charges he had hurled against respondent as the former was
not privy to the agreements between respondent and the latterʼs clients.
Moreover, complainant failed to present any concrete proof of the other
charges. The commissioner recommended that respondent be suspended from
the practice of law for two (2) months. Upon review, the IBP Board of Governors
disregarded the recommendation of the commissioner and dismissed the
complaint. The Board of Governors ratiocinated that suspension was not
warranted since respondent did not really perform an illegal act. The act was not
illegal per se since the lease agreement was likely made to reflect the
agreement among the parties without considering the legality of the situation.
While admittedly respondent may be guilty of ignorance of the law or plain
negligence, the Board dismissed the complaint out of compassion.
Issue: Whether the Lawyerʼs committed a violation of this oath and the Code of
Professional Responsibility?
Held: Yes, the court stressed that much is demanded from those who engage in
the practice of law because they have a duty not only to their clients, but also to
the court, to the bar, and to the public. The lawyerʼs diligence and dedication to
his work and profession ideally should not only promote the interests of his
clients. A lawyer has the duty to attain the ends of justice by maintaining respect
for the legal profession. The administrative cases against lawyers are sui
generes and as such the complainant in the case need not be the aggrieved
party. Thus even if complainant is not a party to the contracts, the charge of
drafting and notarizing contracts in contravention of law holds weight. A plain
reading of these contracts clearly shows that they violate the law limiting lease
of private lands to aliens for a period of twenty five (25) years renewable for
another twenty five (25) years. In preparing and notarizing the illegal lease
contracts, respondent violated the Attorneyʼs Oath and several canons of the
Code of Professional Responsibility. One of the foremost sworn duties of an
attorney-at-law is to “obey the laws of the Philippines.” This duty is enshrined in
the Attorneyʼs Oath16 and in Canon 1, which provides that “(a) lawyer shall
uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law
and legal processes.” Rule 1.02 under Canon 1 states: “A lawyer shall not
counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at decreasing
confidence in the legal systems.”
The other canons of professional responsibility which respondent transgressed
are the following:
Canon 15 – a lawyer shall observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all his dealings
and transactions with his clients.
Rule 15.07- a lawyer shall impress upon his client compliance with the laws and
the principles of hairness.
Canon 17 – a lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be
mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him.