Gonzales vs. Cabucana | A.C. No.6836| January 23, 2006 | Ponente : Austria Martinez, J.

SUMMARY
FACTS:
 Leticia Gonzales filed a disbarrment complaint against Respondent Atty Marcelino Cabucana for
representing conflicting interests
 The respondent’s partner, Atty Edmar Cabucana of the Law firm Cabucana, Cabucana, De Guzman and
Cabucana Law office, had represented her, for a civil case.
 While a decision was rendered ordering the losing party to pay her the amount of 17,310.00 with interest
and 6,000.00 as attorney’s fees, Sheriff Romeo Gatcheco failed to implement, forcing Gonzales to file a
complaint against him
 Sheriff Gatcheco and his spouse went to the house of Gonzales, harassing her to execute an affidavit of
desistance
 , Gonzales filed criminal cases for trespass, grave threats, grave oral defamation, simple coercion and unjust
vexation, notwithstanding the pendency status of the Civil Case in which Gonzales was still represented by
the same firm.
 In these criminal cases, the law firm allegedly represented the Gatcheco spouses. This was alleged to be a
violation of the lawyer-client relationship between Gonzales and the respondent law firm. Rendering Atty.
Marcelino Cabucana liable under the Code of Professional Responsibility Rules 1001, 13.01, 15.02 15.03
21.01 and 21.02.
 The Respondent noted in his Answer to the IBP Complaint
o That he had never appeared or represented Gonzales in the Civil Case, it was his brother who did
so.
o He is representing the Gatcheco couple in the criminal case, but only in pro bono as the spouses
pleaded with him to do so. Stating that the cases were a result of earning the ire of a high-ranking
official when they chose not to testify on his behalf in an earlier case.
o Finally, he argues that the civil case is distinct from the criminal cases he is handling, and that he
had not violated any canon ethics.
 Complainant Gonzales replied to the Answer
o Stating that the civil case had a connection with the criminal cases
o That the Respondent was not doing the criminal cases for pro bono as he had his own agenda.
o The allegation about the high official using her was false, because she had filed the cases of her
own free will
o Furthermore, in a Memorandum, Gonzales added that,
 The respondent prepared and notarized counter-affidavits of the Gatcheco spouses;
 The the high-ranking official referred to by respondent is Judge Ruben Plata and that the
insinuation made by the Respondent was in violation of the CPR ;
 And that respondent continues to use the name of De Guzman in their law firm despite
despite this partner being the Assistant Prosecutor of Santiago City, again in violation of
the CPR.
 On the appointed date of October 24 2004, only Respondent appeared in the office of Commissioner
Wilfredo Reyes
o The respondent presented a sworn affidavit from Gonzales stating that she had withdrew her
complaint against him.
 Commissioner Reyes recommended only stern warning to the Respondent, stating that he should be more
careful in accepting cases that may result into conflict of interests. The IBP issued a Resolution affirming
the Commissioner’s findings and recommendations.
o The Commissioner (ERRONEOUSLY) stated that since the Respondent only made the mistake of
accepting the administrative case of Romeo Gatcheco in good faith, his actions only merit a
reprimand
ISSUES + RULING:

WON Whether the IBP’s findings and recommendation for Reprimand should be accepted? NO
Or Restated Whether Attorney Cabucana committed a sanctionable violation against the Code of Responsibility? YES

o Firstly the Respondent clearly admitted that he had represented the Gatcheco spouses in the criminal cases filed
against him, in contra to the report of the IBP

o Rule 15.03 A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interest except by written consent of all concerned given
after a full disclosure of the facts.
o The relationship between client and lawyer is one of trust and confidence to the highest degree.
o The Court tests whether this trust may be damaged by conflicting interests via checking “whether the
acceptance of a new relation would prevent the full discharge of the lawyers duty of undivided fidelity
and loyalty to the client or invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double-dealing in the performance of
that duty.”
o The law firm’s claim of no conflict of interests has no merit. It is enough that them handling two
distinct but related cases invites suspicion of double-dealing

o The argument that there is no conflict of interest because it is the respondent who handled the criminal cases
and his brother who handled the civil case has no merit.
o Hilado vs. David:[31] We can not sanction his taking up the cause of the adversary of the party who had
sought and obtained legal advice from his firm; this, not necessarily to prevent any injustice to the
plaintiff but to keep above reproach the honor and integrity of the courts and of the bar. Without
condemning the respondents conduct as dishonest, corrupt, or fraudulent, we do believe that upon the
admitted facts it is highly inexpedient. It had the tendency to bring the profession, of which he is a
distinguished member, into public disrepute and suspicion and undermine the integrity of justice
o Good faith is not enough to merit a mere reprimand for the Respondent, because his actions do not
remove the tendency to undermine the integrity of the Court
 His argument that no lawyer would defend the spouses was untenable
 While all members of the Bar are expected not to arbitrarily decline representation of others,
conflict of interest is a tenable reason to do so.
 Granted that he may be the only lawyer that the spouses could turn to, he should have sought
the written consent of all parties involved, including Gonzales
o The Affidavit of Desistance by Gonzales does not bound the Court because the case involves public interest
 The Court must protect both itself and the public from those attorneys guilty of unworthy
practices of the profession
 In most cases, the penalty is suspension ranging from 1 to 3 years, but mitigating circumstances,
such as the Respondent’s pro bono representation, no bad faith assigned to the Respondent,
and that it was not the Respondent himself but the firm who had handled the civil case, were
appreciated

Disposition: Resolution No. XVI-2005-153 of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines is APPROVED with MODIFICATION that
respondent Atty. Marcelino Cabucana, Jr. is FINED the amount of Two Thousand Pesos (P2,000.00) with a STERN
WARNING that a commission of the same or similar act in the future shall be dealt with more severely.