LEE v. SIMANDO agreed to lend the money with Atty.

Simando as co-maker with Mejorado in

June 10, 2013 | Peralta, J. | Parameters in the Practice of Law some of the cash loans. She loaned Php 1,400,000.00 in total.
2. Mejorado refused to pay when the obligation became due. Dr. Lee
PETITIONER: Dr. Teresita Lee instructed Atty. Simando to take legal action but the latter assured her that
RESPONDENTS: Atty. Amador Simando they didn’t need to resort to that and that he would talk to Mejorado. After
several months, no payment was still made and when Dr. Lee reminded
SUMMARY: Atty. Simando induced his client, Dr. Lee, to loan money to Atty. Simando that he was co-maker of the obligation, he replied: “Di
another client, Mejorado. Atty. Simando was co-maker to the loans. Mejorado kasuhan din ninyo ako!”
failed to pay and Atty. Simando ignored Dr. Lee’s requests to file legal action 3. Dr. Lee’s requests for legal action was ignored by Atty. Simando and their
against Mejorado and even denied his liability as co-maker. The SC found him contract was eventually terminated.
guilty of representing conflicting interests and violating the Code of Professional 4. Dr. Lee’s new lawyer, Atty. Gilbert Morandarte, sent a demand letter to
Responsibility when he divulged information he obtained during his lawyer- Atty. Simando who denied his liability as co-maker and claimed that the
client relationship with Dr. Lee. loans were made without his knowledge. Hence, the instant petition for
disbarment.
DOCTRINE: 5. Atty. Simando claimed that Dr. Lee was engaged in lending money at high
One test of whether there is conflict of interest is whether the acceptance of a interest rates and was the one who initiated the financial transaction with
new relation would prevent the full discharge of the lawyer's duty of undivided Mejorado He narrated several instances and civil cases where Dr. Lee was
delity and loyalty to the client or invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double- engaged in money-lending and divulged that even after defendants had
dealing in the performance of that duty. In the process of determining whether already paid their loan, she still collected from them. He added that Dr. Lee
there is a conflict of interest, an important criterion is probability, not certainty, gave Mejorado additional investments without his knowledge and that she
of conflict. collected checks from the latter knowing that he had no funds to pay for
such. He claimed that she never instructed him to file legal action and that
Rule 21.01 - A lawyer shall not reveal the confidences or secrets of his client he did not violate their lawyer-client relationship since the loan was
except; voluntary on Dr. Lee’s part. Further there was no conflict of interest since
(a) When authorized by the client after acquainting him of the consequences of he was Mejorado’s lawyer relative to the latter’s claim for informer’s
the disclosure; reward and not against Dr. Lee.
(b) When required by law; 6. The IBP-CBD found Atty. Simando guilty of violating the Code of
(c) When necessary to collect his fees or to defend himself, his employees or Professional Responsibility and recommended suspension of 6 months. The
associates or by judicial action. IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the Report and
Recommendation of the IBP-CBD.
A lawyer should not, even after the severance of the relation with his client, do 7. Atty. Simando moved for reconsideration and the IBP Board of Governors
anything which will injuriously affect his former client in any matter in which he granted such for lack of sufficient evidence to warrant suspension.
previously represented him nor should he disclose or use any of the client's
confidences acquired in the previous relation. ISSUE/s:
1. WoN Atty. Simando is guilty of representing conflict of interest – YES
2. WoN Atty. Simando violated the Code of Professional Responsibility –
FACTS: YES
1. Atty. Simando was the retained counsel of Dr. Lee. During this period,
Atty. Simando asked if Dr. Lee could lend money to a certain Felicto M. RULING: SC resolves to ADOPT the findings and recommendation of the IBP in
Mejorado. Mejorado was allegedly awaiting the release of his claim for Resolution No. XIX-2010-733 suspending respondent Atty. Amador L. Simando for
informer’s reward for the Bureau of Customs. Dr. Lee initially refused since six (6) months from the practice of law, with a WARNING that a repetition of the
she did not know Mejorado personally and wasn’t in the money-lending same or similar offense will warrant a more severe penalty.
business. However, due to Atty. Simando’s persistence, she eventually

Page 1 of 2



RATIO:
1. One test of whether there is conflict of interest is whether the acceptance
of a new relation would prevent the full discharge of the lawyer's duty
of undivided delity and loyalty to the client or invite suspicion of
unfaithfulness or double-dealing in the performance of that duty.

There is substantial evidence that Atty. Simando represented

conflicting interests. He admitted that Mejorado was his client despite an
existing lawyer-client relationship between Dr. Lee. He admitted that he
introduced Mejorado to Dr. Lee and that he even signed as co-maker to
Mejorado’s obligation despite knowledge of the possibility of conflicting
interests between the two.

It is improper for Atty. Simando to appear as counsel for one party, the
creditor, against the adverse party, the debtor, who is also his client. His
representation of opposing clients in both cases, though unrelated,
obviously constitutes conflict of interest or, at the least, invites suspicion of
double-dealing. His argument that the money received was an investment
and not a loan is difficult to accept, considering that he signed as co-maker.

The proscription against representation of conflicting interests finds

application where such arise with respect to the same general matter
however slight the adverse interest may be. It applies even if the conflict
pertains to the lawyer's private activity or in the performance of a function
in a non-professional capacity. In the process of determining whether
there is a conflict of interest, an important criterion is probability, not
certainty, of conflict.

2. Atty. Simando is also guilty of violating Rule 21.01 of the Code of

Professional Responsibility. To impeach Dr. Lee’s credibility, he divulged
information which he acquired in confidence during the existence of their
lawyer-client relationship.

The termination of the relation of attorney and client provides no

justification for a lawyer to represent an interest adverse to or in conflict
with that of the former client. The client's confidence once reposed cannot
be divested by the expiration of the professional employment.
Consequently, a lawyer should not, even after the severance of the
relation with his client, do anything which will injuriously affect his
former client in any matter in which he previously represented him nor
should he disclose or use any of the client's confidences acquired in the
previous relation.
Page 2 of 2