Lydia Castro – Justo (Complainant) vs. Atty.

Rodolfo Galing (Respondent)

(A.C. No. 6174 November 16, 2011)

FACTS:

Lydia Castro – Justo (the complainant) alleged that sometime in April 2003, she engaged the services of
respondent Atty. Rodolfo Galing in connection with dishonored checks issued by Manila City Councilor Arlene W. Koa.
After she paid his professional fees, the respondent drafted and sent letter to Ms. Koa demanding payment of the
checks. Respondent advised complainant to wait for the lapse of the period indicated in the demand letter before filing
her complaint.

On July 10, 2003, complainant ( Lydia Castro – Justo) filed a criminal complaint against Ms. Koa for estafa and
violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Manila.

On July 27, 2003, she (Lydia Castro – Justo) received a copy of a Motion for Consolidation filed by Atty. Rodolfo
Galing for and on behalf of Ms. Koa, the accused in the criminal cases, and the latter’s daughter Karen Torralba (Ms.
Torralba). Further, on August 8, 2003, the respondent (Atty. Rodolfo Galing) appeared as counsel for Miss Koa before the
prosecutor of Manila.

Complainant (Lydia Castro – Justo) submits that by representing conflicting interests, respondent violated the
Code of Professional Responsibility.

He (Atty. Rodolfo Galing) admitted that he drafted a demand letter for complainant (Lydia Castro –Justo) BUT
argued that it was made only in deference to their long standing friendship and not by reason of professional
engagement as professed by complainant. He denied receiving any professional fee for the services he rendered. It was
allegedly their understanding that complainant would have to take the services of another lawyer. He alleged that
complainant, based on that agreement engaged the services of Atty. Manuel A. Ao.

Respondent stated that the movants (KOA) (person who applies for petition in the court) in these cases are
mother and daughter while complainants are likewise mother and daughter. And that these cases arose out from the
same transaction. Thus, movants and conplainants will be adducing the same sets of evidence and witnesses.

Respondent argued that no lawyer – client relationship existed between him and complainant because there
was no professional fee paid for the services rendered.

Complainant filed instant administrative complaint against Atty. Galing seeking his disbarment from the practice
of law for violation of Canon 15 of Code of Professional Responsibility and conflict of interest.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the respondent violated Canon 15 Rule 15.03 of Code of Professional Responsibility.

HELD:

Yes, the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) found respondent GUILTY of violating
Canon 15, Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility by representing conflicting interests and for his daring
audacity and for the pronounced malignancy of his act. Under Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility .
 By drafting the demand letter respondent affirmed such relationship. In the course of client – lawyer
relationship, the lawyer learns of the facts connected with the client’s case, including the weak and strong points of the
case. The nature of the relationship is, therefore one of trust and confidence of the highest degree. It beehoves lawyers
not only to keep inviolate the clients confidence, but also to avoid the appearance of treachery and double – dealing for
only then can litigants be encouraged to entrust their secrets to their lawyers, which is paramount importance in the
administration of justice. The excuse proffered by respondent that it was not him but Atty. Ao who was eventually
engaged by complainant will not exonerate him from the clear violation of Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. The take – over of a clients cause of action by another lawyer does not give the former lawyer the right to
represent the opposing party. It is not only malpractice but also constitutes a violation of the confidence resulting from
the attorney – client relationship. Considering that it is respondent’s first infraction, the disbarment sought in the
complaint is deemed to be too severe. As recommended by the Board of Governors of the IBP, respondent is suspended
from the practice of law for one (1) year.