LEGAL ETHICS CASES NO.
6 1
Adm. Case No. 4103. September 7, 1995.*
VERONICA S. SANTIAGO, BENJAMIN Q. HONTIVEROS, MR. SOCORRO F. MANAS, and
TRINIDAD NORDISTA, complainants, vs. ATTY. AMADO R. FOJAS, respondent.
Legal Ethics; Attorneys; It is axiomatic that no lawyer is obliged to act either as adviser
or advocate for every person who may wish to become his client but once he agrees to take up
the cause of a client, the lawyer owes fidelity to such cause and must always be mindful of the
trust and confidence reposed in him.— It is axiomatic that no lawyer is obliged to act either as
adviser or advocate for every person who may wish to become his client. He has the right to
decline employment, subject, however, to Canon 14 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Once he agrees to take up the cause of a client, the lawyer owes fidelity to such cause and must
always be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him. He must serve the client with
competence and diligence, and champion the latter’s cause with wholehearted fidelity, care, and
devotion. Elsewise stated, he owes entire devotion to the interest of the client, warm zeal in the
maintenance and defense of his client’s rights, and the exertion of his utmost learning and
ability to the end that nothing be taken or withheld from his client, save by the rules of law,
legally applied. This simply means that his client is entitled to the benefit of any and every
remedy and defense that is authorized by the law of the land and he may expect his lawyer to
assert every such remedy or defense.
Same; Same; If much is demanded from an attorney, it is because the entrusted
privilege to practice law carries with it the correlative duties not only to practice law but also to
the court, to the bar, and to the public.—If much is demanded from an attorney, it is because
the entrusted privilege to practice law carries with it the correlative duties not only to the client
but also to the court, to the bar, and to the public. A lawyer who performs his duty with
diligence and candor not only protects the interest of his client; he also serves the ends of
justice, does honor to the bar, and helps maintain the respect of the community to the legal
profession.
Same; Same; Every case a lawyer accepts deserves his full attention, diligence, skill, and
competence, regardless of its importance and whether he accepts it for a fee or for free.—
Pressure and large volume of legal work provide no excuse for the respondent’s inability to
exercise due diligence in the performance of his duty to file an answer. Every case a lawyer
accepts deserves his full attention, diligence, skill, and competence, regardless of its importance
and whether he accepts it for a fee or for free.
Same; Same; A lawyer’s negligence in not filing an answer on time is not excused by his
claim that the case was in fact a “losing cause,” for if indeed he was so convinced of the futility
of any defense therein, he should have seasonably informed his clients thereof.—The
respondent’s negligence is not excused by his claim that Civil Case No. 3526-V-91 was in fact a
“losing cause” for the complainants since the claims therein for damages were based on the final
decision of the Med-Arbiter declaring the complainants’ act of expelling Salvador from the union
to be illegal. This claim is a mere afterthought which hardly persuades us. If indeed the
respondent was so convinced of the futility of any defense therein, he should have seasonably
informed the complainants thereof. Rule 15.05, Canon 15 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility expressly provides: A lawyer, when advising his client, shall give a candid and
honest opinion on the merits and probable results of the client’s case, neither overstating nor
understating the prospects of the case.
Same; Same; For the inexcusable negligence of a lawyer in failing to file an answer for
his clients, he is reprimanded.—We do not therefore hesitate to rule that the respondent is not
free from any blame for the sad fate of the complainants. He is liable for inexcusable
negligence. WHEREFORE, ATTY. AMADO R. FOJAS is hereby REPRIMANDED and ADMONISHED
to be, henceforth, more careful in the performance of his duty to his clients.
ADMINISTRATIVE MATTER in the Supreme Court. Disbarment.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
     Amado R. Fojas for and in his own behalf.
DAVIDE, JR., J. :
In their letter of 8 September 1993, the complainants, former clients of the respondent, pray
that the latter be disbarred for “malpractice, neglect and other offenses which may be
discovered during the actual investigation of this complaint.” They attached thereto an Affidavit
of Merit wherein they specifically allege:
1.That we are Defendants-Appellates [sic] in the Court of Appeals Case No. CA-G.N. CV
No. 38153 of which to our surprise lost unnecessarily the aforesaid Petition [sic]. A close
perusal of the case reveals the serious misconduct of our attorney on record, Atty. Amado
Fojas tantamount to malpractice and negligence in the performance of his duty obligation
to us, to defend us in the aforesaid case. That the said attorney without informing us the
reason why and riding high on the trust and confidence we repose on him either
abandoned, failed to act accordingly, or seriously neglected to answer the civil complaint
against us in the sala of Judge Teresita Capulong Case No. 3526-V-91 Val. Metro Manila
so that we were deduced [sic] in default.
2.That under false pretenses Atty. Fojas assured us that everything was in order. That he
had already answered the complaint so that in spite of the incessant demand for him to
give us a copy he continued to deny same to us. Only to disclose later that he never
answered it after all because according to him he was a very busy man. Please refer to
Court of Appeals decision dated August 17, 1993.
3.That because of Atty. Amado Fojas’ neglect and malpractice of law we lost the Judge
Capulong case and our appeal to the Court of Appeals. So that it is only proper that Atty.
Fojas be disciplined and disbarred in the practice of his profession.
In his Comment, the respondent admits his “mistake” in failing to file the complainants’ answer
in Civil Case No. 3526-V-91, but he alleges that it was cured by his filing of a motion for
reconsideration, which was unfortunately denied by the court. He asserts that Civil Case No.
3526-V-91 was a “losing cause” for the complainants because it was based on the expulsion of
the plaintiff therein from the Far Eastern University Faculty Association (FEUFA) which was
declared unlawful in the final decision in NCR-OD-M-90-10-050. Thus, “[t]he unfavorable
judgment in the Regional Trial Court is not imputable to [his] mistake but rather imputable to
the merits of the case, i.e. , the decision in the Expulsion case wherein defendants
(complainants herein) illegally removed from the union (FEUFA) membership Mr. Paulino
Salvador. . . .” He further claims that the complainants filed this case to harass him because he
refused to share his attorney’s fees in the main labor case he had handled for them. The
respondent then prays for the dismissal of this complaint for utter lack of merit, since his failure
to file the answer was cured and, even granting for the sake of argument that such failure
amounted to negligence, it cannot warrant his disbarment or suspension from the practice of the
law profession.
The complainants filed a Reply to the respondent’s Comment.
LEGAL ETHICS CASES NO. 6
Issues having been joined, we required the parties to inform us whether they were willing
to submit this case for decision on the basis of the pleadings they have filed. In their separate
compliance, both manifested in the affirmative.
The facts in this case are not disputed.
Complainants Veronica Santiago, Benjamin Hontiveros, Ma. Socorro Manas, and Trinidad
Nordista were the President, Vice-President, Treasurer, and Auditor, respectively, of the FEUFA.
They allegedly expelled from the union Paulino Salvador. The latter then commenced with the
Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) a complaint (NCR-OD-M-90-10-050) to declare
illegal his expulsion from the union.  client, the lawyer owes fidelity to such cause and must always be mindful of the trust and
In his resolution of 22 November 1990, Med-Arbiter Tomas Falconitin declared illegal Salvador’s
expulsion and directed the union and all its officers to reinstate Salvador’s name in the roll of
union members with all the rights and privileges appurtenant thereto. This resolution was
affirmed in toto by the Secretary of Labor and Employment.
Subsequently, Paulino Salvador filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Valenzuela,
Metro Manila, Branch 172, a complaint against the complainants herein for actual, moral, and
exemplary damages and attorney’s fees, under Articles 19, 20, and 21 of the Civil Code. The
case was docketed as Civil Case No. 3526-V-91.
As the complainant’s counsel, the respondent filed a motion to dismiss the said case on
grounds of (1) res judicata by virtue of the final decision of the Med-Arbiter in NCR-OD-M-90-10-
050 and (2) lack of jurisdiction, since what was involved was an intra-union issue cognizable by
the DOLE. Later, he filed a supplemental motion to dismiss.
The trial court, per Judge Teresita Dizon-Capulong, granted the motion and ordered the
dismissal of the case. Upon Salvador’s motion for reconsideration, however, it reconsidered the
order of dismissal, reinstated the case, and required the complainants herein to file their answer
within a nonextendible period of fifteen days from notice.
Instead of filing an answer, the respondent filed a motion for reconsideration and dismissal
of the case. This motion having been denied, the respondent filed with this Court a petition
for certiorari, which was later referred to the Court of Appeals and docketed therein as CA-G.R.
SP No. 25834.
Although that petition and his subsequent motion for reconsideration were both denied, the
respondent still did not file the complainants’ answer in Civil Case No. 3526-V-91. Hence, upon
plaintiff Salvador’s motion, the complainants were declared in default, and Salvador was
authorized to present his evidence ex-parte.
The respondent then filed a motion to set aside the order of default and to stop the  ex-
parte reception of evidence before the Clerk of Court, but to no avail.
Thereafter, the trial court rendered a decision ordering the complainants herein to pay, jointly
and severally, plaintiff Salvador the amounts of P200,000.00 as moral damages; P50,000.00 as
exemplary damages or corrective damages; and P65,000.00 as attorney’s fees; plus cost of suit.
The complainants, still assisted by the respondent, elevated the case to the Court of
Appeals, which, however, affirmed in toto the decision of the trial court.
The respondent asserts that he was about to appeal the said decision to this Court, but his
services as counsel for the complainants and for the union were illegally and unilaterally
terminated by complainant Veronica Santiago.
2
The core issue that presents itself is whether the respondent committed culpable
negligence, as would warrant disciplinary action, in failing to file for the complainants an answer
in Civil Case No. 3526-V-91 for which reason the latter were declared in default and judgment
was rendered against them on the basis of the plaintiff’s evidence, which was received ex-parte.
It is axiomatic that no lawyer is obliged to act either as adviser or advocate for every person
who may wish to become his client. He has the right to decline employment, 1subject, however,
to Canon 14 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Once he agrees to take up the cause of a
confidence reposed in him.2 He must serve the client with competence and diligence, 3 and
champion the latter’s cause with wholehearted fidelity, care, and devotion. 4 Elsewise stated, he
owes entire devotion to the interest of the client, warm zeal in the maintenance and defense of
his client’s rights, and the exertion of his utmost learning and ability to the end that nothing be
taken or withheld from his client, save by the rules of law, legally applied. 5 This simply means
that his client is entitled to the benefit of any and every remedy and defense that is authorized
by the law of the land and he may expect his lawyer to assert every such remedy or defense.6 If
much is demanded from an attorney, it is because the entrusted privilege to practice law carries
with it the correlative duties not only to the client but also to the court, to the bar, and to the
public. A lawyer who performs his duty with diligence and candor not only protects the interest
of his client; he also serves the ends of justice, does honor to the bar, and helps maintain the
respect of the community to the legal profession. 7
The respondent admits that it was his duty to file an answer in Civil Case No. 3526-V-91. He
justifies his failure to do so in this wise:
[I]n his overzealousness to question the Denial Order of the trial court, 8 [he] instead, thru
honest mistake and excusable neglect, filed a PETITION FOR CERTIORARI with the Honorable
Court, docketed as G.R. No. 100983. . . .
And, when the Court of Appeals, to which G.R. No. 100983was referred, dismissed the petition,
he again “inadvertently” failed to file an answer “[d]ue to honest mistake and because of his
overzealousness as stated earlier. . . .”
In their Reply, the complainants allege that his failure to file an answer was not an honest
mistake but was “deliberate, malicious and calculated to place them on the legal disadvantage,
to their damage and prejudice” for, as admitted by him in his motion to set aside the order of
default, his failure to do so was “due to volume and pressure of legal work.” 9 In short, the
complainants want to impress upon this Court that the respondent has given inconsistent
reasons to justify his failure to file an answer.
We agree with the complainants. In his motion for reconsideration of the default order, the
respondent explained his non-filing of the required answer by impliedly invoking forgetfulness
occasioned by a large volume and pressure of legal work, while in his Comment in this case he
attributes it to honest mistake and excusable neglect due to his overzealousness to question the
denial order of the trial court.
Certainly, “overzealousness” on the one hand and “volume and pressure of legal work” on
the other are two distinct and separate causes or grounds. The first presupposes the
respondent’s full and continuing awareness of his duty to file an answer which, nevertheless, he
subordinated to his conviction that the trial court had committed a reversible error or grave
abuse of discretion in issuing an order reconsidering its previous order of dismissal of Salvador’s
complaint and in denying the motion to reconsider the said order. The second ground is purely
based on forgetfulness because of his other commitments.
LEGAL ETHICS CASES NO. 6 3
Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility enjoins every lawyer to “conduct himself
Whether it be the first or the second ground, the fact remains that the respondent did not with courtesy, fairness and candor toward his professional colleagues, and shall avoid harassing
comply with his duty to file an answer in Civil Case No. 3526-V-91. His lack of diligence was tactics against opposing counsel.” (Yu vs. Court of Appeals, 232 SCRA 594 [1994])
compounded by his erroneous belief that the trial court committed such error or grave abuse of
discretion and by his continued refusal to file an answer even after he received the Court of
Appeals’ decision in the certiorari case. There is no showing whatsoever that he further assailed
the said decision before this Court in a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court to
prove his claim of overzealousness to challenge the trial court’s order. Neither was it shown that
he alleged in his motion to lift the order of default that the complainants had a meritorious
defense.10 And, in his appeal from the judgment by default, he did not even raise as one of the
errors of the trial court either the impropriety of the order of default or the court’s grave abuse
of discretion in denying his motion to lift that order.

Pressure and large volume of legal work provide no excuse for the respondent’s inability to
exercise due diligence in the performance of his duty to file an answer. Every case a lawyer
accepts deserves his full attention, diligence, skill, and competence, regardless of its importance
and whether he accepts it for a fee or for free.

All told, the respondent committed a breach of Canon 18 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility which requires him to serve his clients, the complainants herein, with diligence
and, more specifically, Rule 18.03 thereof which provides: “A lawyer shall not neglect a legal
matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.”

The respondent’s negligence is not excused by his claim that Civil Case No. 3526-V-91 was
in fact a “losing cause” for the complainants since the claims therein for damages were based on
the final decision of the Med-Arbiter declaring the complainants’ act of expelling Salvador from
the union to be illegal. This claim is a mere afterthought which hardly persuades us. If indeed
the respondent was so convinced of the futility of any defense therein, he should have
seasonably informed the complainants thereof. Rule 15.05, Canon 15 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility expressly provides:

A lawyer, when advising his client, shall give a candid and honest opinion on the merits and
probable results of the client’s case, neither overstating nor understating the prospects of the
case.

Then too, if he were unconvinced of any defense, we are unable to understand why he took all
the trouble of filing a motion to dismiss on the grounds of res judicata and lack of jurisdiction
and of questioning the adverse ruling thereon initially with this Court and then with the Court of
Appeals, unless, of course, he meant all of these to simply delay the disposition of the civil case.
Finally, the complainants were not entirely without any valid or justifiable defense. They could
prove that the plaintiff was not entitled to all the damages sought by him or that if he were so,
they could ask for a reduction of the amounts thereof.

We do not therefore hesitate to rule that the respondent is not free from any blame for the
sad fate of the complainants. He is liable for inexcusable negligence.
WHEREFORE, ATTY. AMADO R. FOJAS is hereby REPRIMANDED and ADMONISHED to be,
henceforth, more careful in the performance of his duty to his clients.
SO ORDERED.
     Padilla (Chairman), Bellosillo, Kapunan and Hermosisima, Jr., JJ., concur.
Respondent reprimanded and admonished.

Notes.—The practice of lawyers of sending messengers to ask for postponement should

not be tolerated. (People vs. Tibayan, 85 SCRA 378 [1978])
LEGAL ETHICS CASES NO. 6
Adm. Case No. 3195.  December 18, 1989.*
MA. LIBERTAD SJ CANTILLER, complainant, vs. ATTY. HUMBERTO V. POTENCIANO,
respondent.
Legal Ethics; Attorneys: Duty of attorney to his client.—”Public interest requires that an
attorney exert his best efforts and ability in the prosecution or defense of his client’s cause. A
lawyer who performs that duty with diligence and candor not only protects the interests of his
client; he also serves the ends of justice, does honor to the bar and helps maintain the respect
of the community to the legal profession. This is so because the entrusted privilege to practice
law carries with it the correlative duties not only to the client but also to the court, to the bar or
to the public. That circumstance explains the public concern for the maintenance of an
untarnished standard of conduct by every attorney towards his client.”
Same; Same; Same; Poor preparation and writing of pleadings for his client; Lawyer
milked the complainant dry.—This Court agrees that the petitions in Civil Cases Nos. 55118 and
55210 appear to be poorly prepared and written. Having represented himself capable of picking
up the cudgels for the apparently lost cause of complainant respondent should have carefully
prepared the pleadings if only to establish the justness of his representation. The little time
involved is no excuse. Complainant reposed full faith in him. His first duty was to file the best
pleading within his capability. Apparently, respondent was more interested in getting the most
out of the complainant who was in a hopeless situation. He bragged about his closeness to the
judge concerned in one case and talked about the need to “buy” the restraining order in the
other. Worse still he got P10,000.00 as alleged deposit in court which he never deposited.
Instead he pocketed the same. The pattern to milk the complainant dry is obvious.
Same; Same; Same; Attorney’s failure to exercise due diligence or abandonment of
client’s cause renders him unworthy of the trust of his client .—When a lawyer takes a client’s
cause, he thereby covenants that he will exert all effort for its prosecution until its final
conclusion. The failure to exercise due diligence or the abandonment of a client’s cause makes
such lawyer unworthy of the trust which the client had reposed on him. The acts of respondent
in this case violate the most elementary principles of professional ethics. The court finds that
respondent failed to exercise due diligence in protecting his client’s interests. Respondent had
knowledge beforehand that he would be asked by the presiding judge in Civil Case No. 55118 to
withdraw his appearance as counsel by reason of their friendship. Despite such prior knowledge,
respondent took no steps to find a replacement nor did he inform complainant of this fact.
Same; Same; Same; Complainant suffered by losing all her cases due to the lawyer ’s
gross negligence.—His actuation is definitely inconsistent with his duty to protect with utmost
dedication the interest of his client and of the fidelity, trust and confidence which he owes his
client. More so in this case, where by reason of his gross negligence complainant thereby
suffered by losing all her cases.
Same; Same; Same; Attorney displayed lack of good faith as an advocate by his filing a
civil case although he had already filed a motion to withdraw as counsel and failure to appear
for complainant in said case.—The filing of Civil Case No. 55210 on October 26, 1987, the same
day that he had already filed a motion to withdraw as counsel for complainant in Civil Case No.
55118, reveals his lack of good faith as an advocate. He also failed to appear for the
complainant in said case. It was all a show to get more money from her. This adversely reflects
on his fitness to practice law. When confronted with this evident irregularity, he lamely stated
that while he did not physically appear for complainant he nevertheless prepared and drafted
the pleadings.
Same; Same; Same; Amount of P10,000.00 allegedly given to lawyer as fee for his
services is grossly disproportionate with the service he actually rendered .—The allegation of
4
respondent that the ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00) was given to him as fee for his services, is
simply incredible. Indeed, such amount is grossly disproportionate with the service he actually
rendered. And his failure to return even a portion of the amount upon demand of complainant
all the more bolsters the protestation of complainant that respondent does not deserve to
remain as an officer of the court.
Same; Same; Same; Role of lawyers; Conduct to be displayed by lawyers .—Lawyers are
indispensable part of the whole system of administering justice in this jurisdiction. At a time
when strong and disturbing criticisms are being hurled at the legal profession, strict compliance
with one’s oath of office and the canons of professional ethics is an imperative. Lawyers should
be fair, honest, respectable, above suspicion and beyond reproach in dealing with their clients.
The profession is not synonymous with an ordinary business proposition. It is a matter of public
interest.
Same; Same; Lawyer suspended from practice of law for indefinite period .—After
considering the entirety of the circumstances present in this case, this Court finds Atty.
Humberto V. Potenciano to be guilty of the charges against him and hereby SUSPENDS him
from the practice of law for an indefinite period until such time he can demonstrate that he has
rehabilitated himself as to deserve to resume the practice of law.
ADMINISTRATIVE CASE in the Supreme Court.
The facts are stated in the resolution of the Court.
     Eduardo Cabreros, Jr. for complainant.
RESOLUTION
PER CURIAM
“Public interest requires that an attorney exert his best efforts and ability in the prosecution or
defense of his client’s cause. A lawyer who performs that duty with diligence and candor not
only protects the interests of his client; he also serves the ends of justice, does honor to the bar
and helps maintain the respect of the community to the legal profession. This is so because the
entrusted privilege to practice law carries with it the correlative duties not only to the client but
also to the court, to the bar or to the public. That circumstance explains the public concern for
the maintenance of an untarnished standard of conduct by every attorney towards his client.” 1
Subject of this administrative complaint is Humberto V. Potenciano, a practicing lawyer and
a member of the Philippine Bar under Roll No. 21862. He is charged with deceit, fraud, and
misrepresentation, and also with gross misconduct, malpractice and of acts unbecoming of an
officer of the court.
The essential facts are as follows: 2
Complainant herein is the sister of Peregrina Cantiller, defendant in an action for “ejectment”
docketed as Civil Case No. 6046 before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila, Branch 57, San
Juan, Metro Manila.
Another action, likewise involving Peregrina but this time as plaintiff, was then pending
before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 168, Pasig, Metro Manila docketed as Civil Case No.
54117 for “reconveyance with damages.” Both actions involve the apartment unit being rented
by complainant and her sister.
LEGAL ETHICS CASES NO. 6
When the two cases were concluded, Peregrina came out the losing party. Civil Case No.
54117 for reconveyance was ordered dismissed by the Regional Trial Court on June 8, 1987
while Civil Case No. 6046 for ejectment was decided by the Metropolitan Trial Court against her.
On October 8,1987 pursuant to the writ of execution issued in Civil Case No. 6046 for
ejectment, complainant and Peregrina were served a notice to vacate the rented premises within
four (4) days from receipt of notice.
Desperate and at a loss on what to do, they consulted a certain Sheriff Pagalunan on the
matter. Pagalunan, in turn, introduced them to herein respondent. After such introduction, the
parties “impliedly agreed” that respondent would handle their case. Forthwith, a petition entitled
“Annulment of Judgment, Annulment of Sale and Damages with prayer for Preliminary
Injunction and/or Status Quo Order, etc.” was prepared by respondent to forestall the execution
of the order to vacate in Civil Case No. 6046.
In the afternoon of October 9,1987, the complainant was made to sign by respondent what
she described as a “[h]astily prepared, poorly conceived, and haphazardly composed” 3 petition
for annulment of judgment. Complainant alleges that respondent promised her that the
necessary restraining order would be secured if only because the judge who would hear the
matter was his “katsukaran” (close friend).
Thereupon, the petition was filed with the Regional Trial Court, Branch 153, Pasig, Metro
Manila and docketed as Civil Case No. 55118. Respondent demanded from the complainant one
thousand pesos (P1,000.00) as attorney’s fee which the latter paid that same afternoon.
However, when the case was raffled and assigned to Branch 153, the presiding judge asked
respondent to withdraw as counsel in the case on the ground of their friendship.
On October 11, 1987, respondent went to the house of complainant and asked her to be
ready with two thousand pesos (P2,000.00) to be given to another judge who will issue the
restraining order in the ejectment case (Civil Case No. 6046). Complainant and her sister were
only able to raise the amount of one thousand pesos which they immediately gave to
respondent.
Later respondent informed the complainant and her sister that he could not locate the judge
who would issue the restraining order. The parties, then, instead went to the Max’s Restaurant
where respondent ordered some food—including two plastic bags of food allegedly to be given
to the judge who would issue the restraining order. At this juncture, respondent asked for the
remaining balance of the two thousand pesos (P2,000.00) which he earlier demanded.
Complainant gave her last money—a ten dollar ($10.00) bill.
Sometime after the filing of Civil Case No. 55118, respondent informed complainant and
Peregrina that there was a need to file another case with the Regional Trial Court to enable
them to retain possession of the apartment. For this purpose, respondent told complainant to
prepare the amount of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) allegedly to be deposited with the
Treasurer’s Office of Pasig as purchase price of the apartment and another one thousand pesos
(P1,000.00) to cover the expenses of the suit. Respondent stressed to the complainant the need
and urgency of filing the new complaint.
Complainant and Peregrina raised the said amounts through the kindness of some friends
and relatives. On October 26, 1987, the money was handed over to the respondent.
On the same date, a complaint for “Specific Performance, Annulment of Simulated or
Spurious Sale with Damages,” later docketed as Civil Case No. 55210, was filed by respondent
with the Regional Trial Court, Branch 165, Pasig, Metro Manila.
5
At the hearing of the preliminary injunction in Civil Case No. 55118 on October 30, 1987,
respondent, contrary to his promise that he would secure a restraining order, withdrew his
appearance as counsel for complainant. Complainant was not able to get another lawyer as
replacement. Thus, no restraining order or preliminary injunction was obtained. As a
consequence, the order to vacate in Civil Case No. 6046 was eventually enforced and executed.
Sometime thereafter, it came to complainant’s knowledge that there was really no need to
make a deposit often thousand pesos (P10,000.00) relative to Civil Case No. 55210. After further
inquiry, she found out that in fact there was no such deposit made. Thus, on December 23,
1987, complainant sent a demand letter to respondent asking for the return of the total amount
of eleven thousand pesos (P11, 000.00) which the former earlier gave to the latter. However,
this letter was never answered and the money was never returned. Hence, complainant lodged
this administrative complaint against herein respondent.
Meanwhile, on December 29, 1987, the Regional Trial Court, Branch 153, dismissed Civil
Case No. 55118 for failure to state a cause of action. 4 On January 20, 1988, Civil Case No.
55210 was likewise dismissed for being identical with Civil Case No. 55118.5
Respondent in his answer contends that the filing of Civil Cases Nos. 55118 and 55210 was
done in good faith and that the allegations of complainant relative to the administrative charge
against him are all lies, product of one’s imagination and only intended to harrass him. 6
This Court agrees that the petitions in Civil Cases Nos. 55118 and 55210 appear to be
poorly prepared and written. Having represented himself capable of picking up the cudgels for
the apparently lost cause of complainant respondent should have carefully prepared the
pleadings if only to establish the justness of his representation. The little time involved is no
excuse. Complainant reposed full faith in him. His first duty was to file the best pleading within
his capability. Apparently respondent was more interested in getting the most out of the
complainant who was in a hopeless situation. He bragged about his closeness to the judge
concerned in one case and talked about the need to “buy” the restraining order in the other.
Worse still he got P10,000.00 as alleged deposit in court which he never deposited. Instead he
pocketed the same. The pattern to milk the complainant dry is obvious.
When a lawyer takes a client’s cause, he thereby covenants that he will exert all effort for its
prosecution until its final conclusion. The failure to exercise due diligence or the abandonment of
a client’s cause makes such lawyer unworthy of the trust which the client had reposed on him.
The acts of respondent in this case violate the most elementary principles of professional ethics. 7
The Court finds that respondent failed to exercise due diligence in protecting his client’s
interests. Respondent had knowledge beforehand that he would be asked by the presiding judge
in Civil Case No. 55118 to withdraw his appearance as counsel by reason of their friendship.
Despite such prior knowledge, respondent took no steps to find a replacement nor did he inform
complainant of this fact.
Even assuming that respondent had no previous knowledge that he would be asked to
withdraw, the record is quite clear that four (4) days prior to the hearing of the preliminary
injunction in Civil Case No. 55118 respondent already filed a motion therein withdrawing as
complainant’s counsel interposing as reason therefor his frequent attacks of pain due to
hemorrhoids. Despite this void, respondent failed to find a replacement. He did not even ask
complainant to hire another lawyer in his stead.8
His actuation is definitely inconsistent with his duty to protect with utmost dedication the
interest of his client and of the fidelity, trust and confidence which he owes his client. 9 More so
LEGAL ETHICS CASES NO. 6 6
in this case, where by reason of his gross negligence complainant thereby suffered by losing all
her cases.

The filing of Civil Case No. 55210 on October 26, 1987, the same day that he had already
filed a motion to withdraw as counsel for complainant in Civil Case No. 55118, reveals his lack of
good faith as an advocate. He also failed to appear for the complainant in said case. It was all a
show to get more money from her. This adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law. When
confronted with this evident irregularity, he lamely stated that while he did not physically appear
for complainant he nevertheless prepared and drafted the pleadings. 

His services were engaged by complainant hoping that the property subject of the ejectment
proceeding would be returned to her. In fact, it was respondent who persuaded complainant
that the filing of these two cases simultaneously were the means by which this objective can be
achieved. His duty was not only to prepare the pleadings but to represent complainant until the
termination of the cases. This he failed to do.

His representation that there was an immediate need to file Civil Case No. 55210 when he
already knew that he could no longer physically handle the same is an act of deception of his
client.10 It shows lack of fidelity to his oath of office as a member of the Philippine bar.

The allegation of respondent that the ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00) was given to him as
fee for his services, is simply incredible. Indeed, such amount is grossly disproportionate with
the service he actually rendered. 11And his failure to return even a portion of the amount upon
demand of complainant all the more bolsters the protestation of complainant that respondent
does not deserve to remain as an officer of the court.

Lawyers are indispensable part of the whole system of administering justice in this
jurisdiction. At a time when strong and disturbing criticisms are being hurled at the legal
profession, strict compliance with one’s oath of office and the canons of professional ethics is an
imperative.

Lawyers should be fair, honest, respectable, above suspicion and beyond reproach in
dealing with their clients. The profession is not synonymous with an ordinary business
proposition. It is a matter of public interest.

WHEREFORE, after considering the entirety of the circumstances present in this case, this
Court finds Atty. Humberto V. Potenciano to be guilty of the charges against him and hereby
SUSPENDS him from the practice of law for an indefinite period until such time he can
demonstrate that he has rehabilitated himself as to deserve to resume the practice of law.
Finally, respondent is hereby ordered to return to complainant herein the sum of eleven
thousand pesos (P11,000.00) with legal interest from the date of this resolution until it is
actually returned.
SO ORDERED.
     Fernan, (C.J.), Narvasa, Melencio-Herrera, Gutierrez
Jr., Cruz, Paras, Feliciano, Gancayco, Padilla, Bidin, Sarmiento, Cortés, Griño-Aquino, Medialde
a and Regalado, JJ., concur.
Respondent suspended from the practice of law for an indefinite period .

Note.—Attorney is guilty of contempt for not disuading client from filing suits involving the
same parties and issues. (Pacquing vs. Court of Appeals, 115 SCRA 117.)
LEGAL ETHICS CASES NO. 6
A.C. No. 3283. July 13, 1995.*
RODOLFO MILLARE, petitioner, vs. ATTY. EUSTAQUIO Z. MONTERO, respondent.
Legal Ethics; Attorneys; A lawyer is not a gun for hire  .—Under Canon 19 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, a lawyer is required to represent his client “within the bounds of the
law.” The Code enjoins a lawyer to employ only fair and honest means to attain the lawful
objectives of his client (Rule 19.01) and warns him not to allow his client to dictate the
procedure in handling the case (Rule 19.03). In short, a lawyer is not a gun for hire.
Same; Same; Pleadings and Practice; Advocacy, within the bounds of the law, permits
the attorney to use any arguable construction of the law or rules which is favorable to his client,
but he is not allowed to knowingly advance a claim or defense that is unwarranted under exist
ing law.—Advocacy, within the bounds of the law, permits the attorney to use any arguable
construction of the law or rules which is favorable to his client. But the lawyer is not allowed to
knowingly advance a claim or defense that is unwarranted under existing law. He cannot
prosecute patently frivolous and meritless appeals or institute clearly groundless actions
(Annotated Code of Professional Responsibility 310 [1979]). Professional rules impose limits on a
lawyer’s zeal and hedge it with necessary restrictions and qualifications (Wolfram, Modern Legal
Ethics 579-582 [1986]).
Same; Same; Same; Judgment; It is unethical for a lawyer to abuse or wrongfully use
the judicial process for the sole purpose of frustrating and delaying the execution of a
judgment .—It is unethical for a lawyer to abuse or wrongfully use the judicial process, like the
filing of dilatory motions, repetitious litigation and frivolous appeals for the sole purpose of
frustrating and delaying the execution of a judgment (Edelstein, The Ethics of Dilatory Motions
Practice: Time for Change, 44 Fordham L. Rev. 1069 [1976]; Overmeyer v. Fidelista and Deposit
Co., 554 F. 2d 539, 543 [2d Cir. 1971]).
Same; Same; Same; Same; When the judgment of a superior court is remanded to the
trial court for execution, the function of the trial court is ministerial only .—Moreover, when the
CA ordered that the records of the case be remanded, respondent knew very well that the
decision of the MTC was already ripe for execution. This Court, in People of Paombong, Bulacan
v. Court of Appeals, 218 SCRA 423 (1993), ruled: “x x x [w]hen the judgment of a superior court
is remanded to the trial court for execution, the function of the trial court is ministerial only; the
trial court is merely obliged with becoming modesty to enforce that judgment and has no
jurisdiction either to modify in any way or to reverse the same. x x x” (at p. 430)
Same; Same; Same; Same; Forum Shopping; A lawyer who files a total of six appeals,
complaints or petitions to frustrate the execution of a judgment is guilty of forum shopping.—
Respondent filed a total of six appeals, complaints or petitions to frustrate the execution of the
MTC judgment in Civil Case No. 844. Judging from the number of actions filed by respondent to
forestall the execution of the same judgment, respondent is also guilty of forum shopping.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Words and Phrases; There is forum shopping when,
by reason of an adverse decision in one forum, defendant ventures to another for a more
favorable resolution of his case.—InVillanueva v. Adre, 172 SCRA 876 (1989), the Court
explained that there is forum shopping when by reason of an adverse decision in one forum,
defendant ventures to another for a more favorable resolution of his case.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; A lawyer who files multiple or repetitious petitions
(which obviously delays the execution of a final and executory judgment) subjects himself to
disciplinary action for incompetence (for not knowing any better) or for willful violation of his
duties as an attorney.—In the case of Gabriel v. Court of Appeals, 72 SCRA 272 (1976), this
Court explained that: “Such filing of multiple petitions constitutes abuse of the Court’s processes
7
and improper conduct that tends to impede, obstruct and degrade the administration of justice
and will be punished as contempt of court. Needless to add, the lawyer who filed such multiple
or repetitious petitions (which obviously delays the execution of a final and executory judgment)
subjects himself to disciplinary action for incompetence (for not knowing any better) or for
willful violation of his duties as an attorney to act with all good fidelity to the courts and to
maintain only such actions as appear to him to be just and are consistent with truth and honor.”
ADMINISTRATIVE MATTER in the Supreme Court. Disbarment.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
QUIASON, J.:
This is a complaint for disbarment. Pursuant to paragraph 2, Section 1, Rule 139-B of the
Revised Rules of Court, this Court resolved to refer it to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
(IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation.
On April 15, 1994, the IBP Board of Governors rendered a decision, finding respondent
guilty of malpractice and recommending that he be suspended from the practice of law.
I
Pacifica Millare, the mother of the complainant, obtained a favorable judgment from the
Municipal Trial Court, Bangued, Abra (MTC) which ordered Elsa Dy Co to vacate the premises
subject of the ejectment case (Civil Case No. 844). Co, through respondent as counsel, appealed
the decision to the Regional Trial Court, Branch 11, Bangued, Abra (RTC). She neither filed a
supersedeas bond nor paid the rentals adjudged by the MTC. The RTC affirmed in toto the
decision of the 
The Court of Appeals (CA) dismissed Co’s appeal from the decision of the RTC for failure to
comply with Section 22 of B.P. Blg. 129 and Section 22(b) of the Interim Rules and Guidelines
(CA-G.R. CV No. 11404). According to the CA, Co should have filed a petition for review and not
an ordinary appeal (Rollo, Vol. I, p. 22).
The judgment of the MTC became final and executory on November 19, 1986.
On January 2, 1987, a Manifestation and Motion was filed by respondent as counsel for  Co
in CA-G.R. CV No. 11404, arguing that the decisions of the MTC and the RTC were null and void
for being contrary to law, justice and equity for allowing the lessor to increase by 300% the
rentals for an old house. Respondent, admitting his mistake in filing an ordinary appeal instead
of a petition for review, prayed that he be allowed to file an action for annulment.
On February 23, 1987, the CA gave due course to respondent’s Manifestation and Motion
and let the records remain with it. However, on November 10, 1987, the said court ordered the
records in CA-G.R. CV No. 11404 to be remanded to the court a quo.
On March 9, 1987, respondent filed with the CA a Petition for Annulment of Decisions
and/or Reformation or Novation of Decisions of the MTC and the RTC (CA-G.R. SP No. 11690),
insisting that the decisions were not in accordance with existing laws and policies. On December
17, 1987, the CA dismissed the petition for annulment or novation explaining that—
“x x x, aside from the reliefs provided in these two sections (Secs. 1 & 2, Rule 38), there is no
other means whereby the defeated party may procure final and executory judgment to be set
aside with a view to the renewal of the litigation, unless (a) the judgment is void for want of
jurisdiction or lack of due process of law, or (b) it has been obtained by fraud, x x x. There is no
LEGAL ETHICS CASES NO. 6
allegation in the present complaint to the effect that the judgments in the former cases were
secured through fraud ” (Rollo, Vol. I, p. 35; Italics supplied).
On January 15, 1988, respondent filed an Urgent Motion for Reconsideration and Motion to Set
Motion for Reconsideration for Oral Arguments of the CA decision. The CA denied the motion.
Again, respondent requested the CA to set his Motion for Oral Arguments on April 14, 1988.
In a resolution dated February 12, 1988, the CA denied the Motion for Oral Argument and in
a resolution dated October 18, 1988, denied the motion for reconsideration of the February 12
Resolution.
Respondent then filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari with this Court (G.R. No. 86084)
questioning the decisions of the MTC and the RTC in favor of petitioner’s mother. In a
Resolution dated January 4, 1989, we denied the petition for having been filed and paid late on
December 12, 1988 and November 12, 1988, respectively. A motion for reconsideration from
such resolution was likewise denied with finality.
Respondent filed a Motion for the Issuance of a Prohibitory or Restraining Order (dated July
6, 1988) in CA-G.R. SP No. 11690. On April 12, 1988, the mother of complainant filed a Motion
for Execution of the judgment in Civil Case No. 844. Respondent filed an Opposition to the
Motion for Execution on the ground that the case was still pending review by the CA in CA-G.R.
SP No. 11690and therefore the motion for execution was premature. On August 23, 1988, the
MTC ordered the issuance of a writ of execution. Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration,
which was denied. The RTC affirmed the order for the issuance of the writ of execution. Thus, a
writ of execution was issued on October 18, 1988.
On October 26, 1988, respondent filed a special civil action (SP CV No. 624) with the RTC,
Branch 1, Bangued, Abra for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus with preliminary injunction
against the MTC, Provincial Sheriff and complainant’s mother, seeking to annul the writ of
execution issued in MTC Civil Case No. 844 and RTC Civil Case No. 344. Respondent alleged that
the order granting the writ of execution was issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack of jurisdiction since a petition to annul the decisions (CA-G.R. SP No. 11690) was still
pending with the CA.
On October 28, 1988, the provincial sheriff, Romulo V. Paredes, deferred the
implementation of the writ of execution until the petition filed in SP CV No. 624 for certiorari was
resolved. The CA denied in SP CV No. 624 respondent’s Urgent Motion to Set Aside and Declare
Null and Void the Writ of Execution.
From the decision of the RTC, Branch 1, Abra in SP CV No. 624 denying the Petition for
Certiorari, Prohibition, Mandamus with Preliminary Issuance of Prohibitory Order, respondent
again filed an Appeal and/or Review by Certiorari, Etc. with the CA (CA-G.R. SP No. 17040).
II
We have no reason to reverse the findings of the IBP Board of Governors.
Under Canon 19 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, a lawyer is required to represent
his client “within the bounds of the law.” The Code enjoins a lawyer to employ only fair and
honest means to attain the lawful objectives of his client (Rule 19.01) and warns him not to
allow his client to dictate the procedure in handling the case (Rule 19.03). In short, a lawyer is
not a gun for hire.
8
Advocacy, within the bounds of the law, permits the attorney to use any arguable
construction of the law or rules which is favorable to his client. But the lawyer is not allowed to
knowingly advance a claim or defense that is unwarranted under existing law. He cannot
prosecute patently frivolous and meritless appeals or institute clearly groundless actions
(Annotated Code of Professional Responsibility 310 [1979]). Professional rules impose limits on a
lawyer’s zeal and hedge it with necessary restrictions and qualifications (Wolfram, Modern Legal
Ethics 579-582 [1986]).
Under Canon 12 of the Code of Responsibility, a lawyer is required to exert every effort and
consider it his duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice. Implementing
said Canon are the following rules:
“Rule 12.02.—A lawyer shall not file multiple actions arising from the same cause.
x x x      x x x      x x x
“Rule 12.04.—A lawyer shall not unduly delay a case, impede the execution of a judgment
or misuse court processes.”
It is unethical for a lawyer to abuse or wrongfully use the judicial process, like the filing of
dilatory motions, repetitious litigation and frivolous appeals for the sole purpose of frustrating
and delaying the execution of a judgment (Edelstein, The Ethics of Dilatory Motions Practice:
Time for Change, 44 Fordham L. Rev. 1069 [1976]; Overmeyer v. Fidelista and Deposit Co., 554
F. 2d 539, 543 [2d Cir. 1971]).
The rights of respondent’s client in Civil Case No. 844 of the MTC were fully protected and
her defenses were properly ventilated when he filed the appeal from the MTC to the RTC. But
respondent thereafter resorted to devious and underhanded means to delay the execution of the
judgment rendered by the MTC adverse to his client. The said decision became executory even
pending its appeal with the RTC because of the failure of Co to file a supersedeas bond and to
pay the monthly rentals as they fell due. Furthermore, his petition for annulment of the
decisions of the MTC and RTC which he filed with the CA (CA-G.R. No. 11690) was defective and
dilatory. According to the CA, there was no allegation therein that the courts had no jurisdiction,
that his client was denied due process, or “that the judgments in the former cases were secured
through fraud.”
As ruled in Regidor v. Court of Appeals, 219 SCRA 530(1993):
“A judgment can be annulled only on two grounds: (a) that the judgment is void for want of
jurisdiction or for lack of due process of law, or (b) that it has been obtained by fraud. x x x” (at
p. 534).
Moreover, when the CA ordered that the records of the case be remanded, respondent knew
very well that the decision of the MTC was already ripe for execution.
This Court, in People of Paombong, Bulacan v. Court of Appeals , 218 SCRA 423 (1993),
ruled:
“x x x [w]hen the judgment of a superior court is remanded to the trial court for execution, the
function of the trial court is ministerial only; the trial court is merely obliged with becoming
modesty to enforce that judgment and has no jurisdiction either to modify in any way or to
reverse the same. x x x” (at p. 430)
(See also Valenzona v. Court of Appeals, 226 SCRA 306[1993] and Garbo v. Court of
Appeals, 226 SCRA 250[1993]).
LEGAL ETHICS CASES NO. 6 9
Respondent filed a total of six appeals, complaints or petitions to frustrate the execution of the
MTC judgment in Civil Case No. 844, to wit: Notes.—A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client but not at the expense of truth and
the administration of justice. (Garcia vs. Francisco, 220 SCRA 512 [1993])
Lawyers are called upon to obey court orders and processes. ( Go vs. Court of Appeals, 240
(1)Civil Case No. 344—Appeal from the decision rendered in Civil Case No. 844 of the
SCRA 91 [1995])
Municipal Trial Court, Bangued, Abra, with the Regional Trial Court, Abra;

(2)CA-G.R. CV No. 11404—Appeal from the decision of the Regional Trial Court, Abra;

(3)CA-G.R. SP No. 11690—An Action For the Annulment of Decisions And/Or Reformation
or Novation of Decisions filed with the Court of Appeals;

(4)G.R. No. 86084—Petition For Review On Certiorari filed with the Supreme Court;

(5)CA-G.R. SP No. 17040—Appeal And/Or Review By Certiorari, Etc. filed also with the
Court of Appeals; and

(6)SP Civil Action No. 624—Petition For Certiorari, Prohibition, Mandamus with Preliminary
Issuance of Prohibitory Order filed with the Regional Trial Court, Branch I, Bangued,
Abra.

Judging from the number of actions filed by respondent to forestall the execution of the same
judgment, respondent is also guilty of forum shopping.

In Villanueva v. Adre, 172 SCRA 876 (1989), the Court explained that forum shopping exists
when, by reason of an adverse decision in one forum, defendant ventures to another for a more
favorable resolution of his case. In the case of Gabriel v. Court of Appeals , 72 SCRA 272 (1976),
this Court explained that:

“Such filing of multiple petitions constitutes abuse of the Court’s processes and improper
conduct that tends to impede, obstruct and degrade the administration of justice and will be
punished as contempt of court. Needless to add, the lawyer who filed such multiple or
repetitious petitions (which obviously delays the execution of a final and executory judgment)
subjects himself to disciplinary action for incompetence (for not knowing any better) or for
willful violation of his duties as an attorney  to act with all good fidelity to the courts and to
maintain only such actions as appear to him to be just and are consistent with truth and honor”
(at p. 275).

By having willfully and knowingly abused his rights of recourse in his efforts to get a favorable
judgment, which efforts were all rebuffed, respondent violated the duty of a member of the Bar
to institute actions only which are just and put up such defenses as he perceives to be truly
contestable under the laws (Garcia v. Francisco, 220 SCRA 512 [1993]). As correctly noted by
the Committee on Bar Discipline “in filing a number of pleadings, actions and petitions,
respondent ‘has made a mockery of the judicial processes’ and disregarded canons of
professional ethics in intentionally frustrating the rights of a litigant in whose favor a judgment
in the case was rendered, thus, ‘abused procedural rules to defeat ends of substantial justice’ ”
(Report and Recommendation, IBP Committee on Bar Discipline, p. 2).

WHEREFORE, respondent is SUSPENDED for one year.

SO ORDERED.
     Padilla (Chairman), Davide, Jr., Bellosillo and Kapunan, JJ., concur.
Respondent suspended for one year.
LEGAL ETHICS CASES NO. 6
A.C. No. 4346. April 3, 2002.*
ERLINDA ABRAGAN, MILA GINA JAVIER, REYNALDO MERCADO, PATERNO TORRES,
BENIGNA ANTIBO, ELEISER SALVADOR, EDNA SAPON, JULIANA CUENCA,
ESPERANZA BUENAFE, VICENTE BARNAGA, MARTHA SAPON, JOSEFINA OPEÑA,
PUREZA WABE, RONULFO LOPEZ, DOMINADOR HERNANDEZ, FELIPA EMBATE,
ROQUE CATIIL, JERRY SAPON, CONCEPCION MATANOG, and PABLO SALOMON,
complainants, vs. Atty. MAXIMO G. RODRIGUEZ, respondent.
Attorneys; Legal Ethics; Malpractice; The trust and confidence clients repose in lawyers
require a high standard and appreciation of the latter’s duty to the former, the legal profession,
the courts and the public.—Having said that, we find, however, that respondent falls short of the
integrity and good moral character required from all lawyers. They are expected to uphold the
dignity of the legal profession at all times. The, trust and confidence clients repose in them
require a high standard and appreciation of the latter’s duty to the former, the legal profession,
the courts and the public. Indeed, the bar must maintain a high standard of legal proficiency as
well as of honesty and fair dealings. To this end, lawyers should refrain from doing anything that
might tend to lessen the confidence of the public in the fidelity, honesty and integrity of their
profession.
Same; Same; Same; Conflict of Interest; A lawyer shall not represent conflicting
interests except by written consent of all concerned given after full disclosure of the facts .—In
the present case, respondent clearly violated Rule 15.03 of Canon 15 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, which provides that “a lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by
written consent of all concerned given after full disclosure of the facts.” The Court explained
in Buted v. Hernando: “[A] lawyer represents conflicting interests when, in behalf of one client,
it is his duty to contend for that which duty to another client requires him to oppose . “The
obligation to represent the client with undivided fidelity and not to divulge his secrets or
confidence forbids also the subsequent acceptance of retainers or employment from others in
matters adversely affecting any interest of the client with respect to which confidence has been
reposed.” (Italics in the original)
Same; Same; Same; Same; Attorneys owe undivided allegiance to their clients, and
should at all times weigh their actions, especially in their dealings with the latter and the public
at large; The Court will not tolerate any departure from the “straight and narrow” path
demanded by the ethics of the legal profession .—In the case at bar, petitioners were the same
complainants in the indirect contempt case and in the Complaint for forcible entry in Civil Case
No. 11204. Respondent should have evaluated the situation first before agreeing to be counsel
for the defendants in the indirect contempt proceedings. Attorneys owe undivided allegiance to
their clients, and should at all times weigh their actions, especially in their dealings with the
latter and the public at large. They must conduct themselves beyond reproach at all times. The
Court will not tolerate any departure from the “straight and narrow” path demanded by the
ethics of the legal profession.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Lawyers should be like Caesar’s wife—to be and to appear
to be so.—In Hilado v. David, which we quote below, the Court advised lawyers to be like
Caesar’s wife—to be pure and to appear to be so. “This stern rule is designed not alone to
prevent the dishonest practitioner from fraudulent conduct, but as well as to protect the honest
lawyer from unfounded suspicion of unprofessional practice. It is founded on principles of public
policy, on good taste. As has been said in another case, the question is not necessarily one of
the rights of the parties, but as to whether the attorney has adhered to proper professional
standard. With these thoughts in mind, it behooves attorneys, like Caesar’s wife, not only to
keep inviolate the client’s confidence, but also to avoid the appearance of treachery and double-
dealing. Only thus can litigants be encouraged to entrust their secrets to their attorneys which is
of paramount importance in the administration of justice.”
10
Same; Same; Same; Same; A lawyer’s divided loyalty constitutes malpractice for which
he may be suspended.—Because of his divided allegiance, respondent has eroded, rather than
enhanced, the public perception of the legal profession. His divided loyalty constitutes
malpractice for which he may be suspended, following Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of
Court, which provides: “SEC. 27. Disbarment or suspension of Attorneys by Supreme Court,
grounds therefor.—Any member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office as
attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such
office, grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral
turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is required to take before admission to
practice, or for a wilful disobedience appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without
authority so to do. x x x.”
ADMINISTRATIVE MATTER in the Supreme Court. Disbarment.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
     Roland B. Inting for complainants.
PANGANIBAN,  J.:
Lawyers violate their oath of office when they represent conflicting interests. They taint not only
their own professional practice, but the entire legal profession itself.
The Case and the Facts
Before us is a verified Petition 1 praying for the disbarment of Atty. Maximo G. Rodriguez because
of alleged illegal and unethical acts. The Petition relevantly reads as follows:
“2.That sometime in 1986, the petitioners hired the services of the respondent and the
latter, represented the former in the case entitled PABLO SALOMON, et al. vs. RICARDO
DACALUZ, et al., before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Cagayan de Oro City, Branch 3
docketed as Civil Case No. 11204, for Forcible Entry with Petition for a Writ of Preliminary
Injunction and Damages, [and] a Certified True and Correct Copy of the COMPLAINT by
Clerk of Court III Gerardo B. Ucat of the said Court, is herewith attached to the original of
this PETITION, while photocopies of the same are also attached to the duplicate copies of
this same Petition and marked as Annex ‘A’ hereof;
“3.That after the Case No. 11204 was finally won, and a Writ of Execution was issued by
the Honorable Municipal Trial Court in Cities of Cagayan de Oro City, Branch 3, the same
respondent lawyer represented the petitioners herein;
“4.That when respondent counsel disturbed the association (Cagayan de Oro Landless
Residents Association, Inc.), to which all the complainants belong, by surreptitiously
selling some rights to other persons without the consent of the petitioners herein, they
decided to sever their client-lawyer relationship;
“5.That in fact, the National Bureau of Investigation of Cagayan de Oro City, is presently
undertaking an investigation on the illegal activities of Atty. Maximo Rodriguez pertaining
to his express involvement in the illegal and unauthorized apportionment, assignment and
sale of parcels of land subject to the Case No. 11204, where he represented the poor
landless claimants of Cagayan de Oro City, which include your petitioners in this case;
LEGAL ETHICS CASES NO. 6
“6.That petitioners herein later filed an indirect contempt charge under Civil Case No.
11204 against Sheriff Fernando Loncion, et al., on August 2, 1991 engaging the services
of Atty. LORETO O. SALVA, SR., an alleged former student of law of Atty. Maximo
Rodriguez, [and a] certified true and correct copy of the complaint thereat consisting of
four (4) pages is herewith attached and photocopies of which are also attached to the
duplicates hereof, and correspondingly marked as their Annex ‘B’;
“7.That respondent lawyer, Atty. Maximo Rodriguez, (in the Indirect Contempt Case
under the same Civil Case No. 11204,) REPRESENTED and actively took up the defense of
FERNANDO LONCION, et al. much to the dismay, damage and prejudice of the herein
petitioners, [and] a copy of Atty. Rodriguez’s Answer, which is also certified true and
correct by Clerk of Court III Gerardo Ucat of Branch 3 of MTCC-Cagayan de Oro City,
consisting of three (3) pages, is attached to the original of this Petition, while photocopies
of the same are attached to the other copies hereof and accordingly marked as Annex ‘C’;
That the records will bear the petitioners out that their counsel, Atty. SALVA, SR. later on
withdrew the case of Indirect Contempt upon the suggestion of Atty. Maximo Rodriguez;
and instead, filed the Motion for the Issuance of an Alias Writ of Execution;
“9.That on January 12, 1993, the herein respondent, without consulting the herein
Petitioners who are all poor and ignorant of court procedures and the law, filed in behalf of
the plaintiffs (which include the herein Petitioners) in Civil Case No. 11204, a Motion to
Withdraw Plaintiffs’ Exhibits, [and] a certified true and correct copy of said Motion by Mr.
Gerardo Ucat of MTCC Branch 3, Cagayan de Oro City is herewith attached to the original
of this Petition, while photocopies of the same are also attached to the rest of the copies of
this same Petition, and are correspondingly marked as their Annex ‘D’.
“10.That the illegal and unethical actions of Atty. Maximo Rodriguez are most obnoxious,
condemnable, and highly immoral, to say the least, more so if we consider his social
standing and ascendancy in the community of Cagayan de Oro City;
“11.That the records of Civil Case No. 11204 which are voluminous will bear the petitioners’
allegations against the herein respondent, who, after representing them initially, then
transferring allegiance and services to the adverse parties (Lonchion, Palacio and NHA
Manager), came back to represent the herein petitioners without any regard [for] the rules
of law and the Canons of Professional Ethics, which is highly contemptible and a clear
violation of his oath as a lawyer and an officer of the courts of law;
“12.That these acts are only those that records will bear, because outside of the court
records, respondent, without regard [for] delicadeza, fair play and the rule of law, has
assigned, apportioned and sold parcels of land[,] subject matter in Civil Case No. 11204
which legally have been pronounced and decided to be in the possession of the plaintiffs in
Civil Case No. 11204, who are partly the petitioners herein. Thus, they cannot yet enjoy the
fruits of the tedious and protracted legal battle because of respondent’s illegal acts, which
have instilled fear among the plaintiffs and the petitioners herein;
“13.That respondent lawyer even represented ERLINDA ABRAGAN, one of the herein
petitioners, in a later proceedings in Civil Case No. 11204 wherein the apportionment of
parcels of land was erroneously, unprocedurally and illegally submitted to a commissioner,
and that ERLINDA ABRAGAN, after winning in the said Civil Case was later on dispossessed
11
of her rights by respondent counsel’s maneuver, after the decision (in Civil Case No.
11208) became final executory;
That to make matters worse, respondent Atty. Rodriguez eventually fenced an area
consisting of about 10,200 square meters within Lot No. 1982[,] the subject matter in Civil
Case No. 11204 without the consent of the herein petitioners. He even openly and publicly
proclaimed his possession and ownership thereof, which fact is again and also under NBI
investigation;
“15.That all the foregoing acts of respondent lawyer plus his continuing and ongoing illegal
and unethical maneuvers have deprived the herein petitioners of their vested rights to
possess and eventually own the land they have for decades possessed, and declared as
such by final judgment in Civil Case No. 11204.”
In his Comment,2 respondent flatly denied the accusations of petitioners. He explained that the
withdrawal of the exhibits, having been approved by the trial court, was not “illegal, obnoxious,
undesirable and highly immoral.” He added that he took over the 8,000 square meters of land
only after it had been given to him as attorney’s fees. In his words:
“14. Respondent ADMITS that he fenced an area of about 8,000 sq. [m], after the association
had awarded the same as attorney’s fees in Civil Case Number 11204, the dismissal of the
appeal by the NHA, the successful handling of three (3) cases in the SUPREME COURT, the
pending case of QUIETING OF TITLE filed by the NHA, and for the pending reconveyance
case, Civil Case No. 93-573, supra. These area of 8,000 sq. [m]., was awarded as attorney’s
fees, which [were] supposed to be ten percent of the 22 hectares, Lot No. 1982, the subject
matter of Civil Case No. 11204, but the association and its members were able to take actual
possession by judgment of the courts only o[f] the twelve (12) hectares. [This] area consisting
of 8,000 sq. [m]., and consisting of two (2) lots [was] fenced by the respondent to prevent
squatters from entering the area. The rights of possession and ownership o[f] this area by the
respondent depends upon the outcome of Civil Case No. 93-573, supra, for reconveyance of title
by the association and its members versus the NHA, et al. If it is true that this is under
investigation by the NBI, then why, not wait and submit the investigation of the NHA, instead of
filing this unwarranted, false and fabricated charge based on preposterous and ridiculous
charges without any proof whatsoever, except the vile [language] of an irresponsible lawyer.” 3
Thereafter, petitioners filed a Reply4 in which they reiterated their allegations against respondent
and added that the latter likewise violated Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
The Court referred the case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation,
report and/or decision.5
Report of the Investigating Commissioner
In her Report and Recommendation dated January 23, 2001, Investigating IBP Commissioner
Lydia A. Navarro recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for six
(6) months for violation of Rule 15.03 of Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Her report reads in part as follows:
“From the facts obtaining, it is apparent that respondent represented conflicting interest
considering that the complainants were the same plaintiffs in both cases and were duly specified
in the pleadings particularly in the caption of the cases. Under the said predicament even if
complainants were excluded as members of the Association represented by the respondent; the
latter should have first secured complainants’ written consent before representing defendants in
the Indirect Contempt case particularly Macario Palacio, president of the Association, or inhibited
himself.
LEGAL ETHICS CASES NO. 6 12
“It is very unfortunate that in his desire to render service to his client, respondent
overlooked the fact that he already violated Rule 15.03 of [C]anon 15 of the Code of The Court will not tolerate any departure from the “straight and narrow” path demanded by
Professional Responsibility, to wit: the ethics of the legal profession.
‘Rule 15.03—A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all In Hilado v. David,11 which we quote below, the Court advised lawyers to be like Caesar’s
concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts.’ wife—to be pure and to appear to be so. 
“We have no alternative but to abide by the rules.”6
“This stern rule is designed not alone to prevent the dishonest practitioner from fraudulent
conduct, but as well as to protect the honest lawyer from unfounded suspicion of unprofessional
IBP Board of Governors’ Resolution
practice. It is founded on principles of public policy, on good taste. As has been said in another
Upholding the above-quoted Report, the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the
case, the question is not necessarily one of the rights of the parties, but as to whether the
Philippines recommended via its May 26, 2001 Resolution that respondent be suspended from
attorney has adhered to proper professional standard. With these thoughts in mind, it behooves
the practice of law for two (2) months for violation of Rule 15.03 of Canon 15 of the Code of
attorneys, like Caesar’s wife, not only to keep inviolate the client’s confidence, but also to avoid
Professional Responsibility.
the appearance of treachery and double-dealing. Only thus can litigants be encouraged to
This Court’s Ruling entrust their secrets to their attorneys which is of paramount importance in the administration of
We agree with the findings and the recommendation of the IBP Board of Governors, but hold justice.”
that the penalty should be six-month suspension as recommended by the investigating Because of his divided allegiance, respondent has eroded, rather than enhanced, the public
commissioner. perception of the legal profession. His divided loyalty constitutes malpractice for which he may
be suspended, following Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, which provides:
Administrative Liability of Respondent
At the outset, we agree with Commissioner Navarro’s conclusion that apart from their allegations
“SEC. 27.  Disbarment or suspension of Attorneys by Supreme Court, grounds therefor .—Any
in their various pleadings, petitioners did not proffer any proof tending to show that respondent
member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme
had sold to other persons several rights over the land in question; and that he had induced the
Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral
former counsel for petitioners, Atty. Salva, Jr., to withdraw the indirect contempt case that they
conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for any violation
had filed. Neither did the IBP find anything wrong as regards the 8,000 square meters awarded
of the oath which he is required to take before admission to practice, or for a wilful disobedience
to respondent as payment for his legal services. Petitioners’ bare assertions, without any proof
appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without authority so to do. x x x.”
to back them up, would not justify the imposition of a penalty on respondent.
Complainants ask that respondent be disbarred. We find however that suspension of six (6)
months from the practice of law, as recommended by Commissioner Navarro, is sufficient to
Having said that, we find, however, that respondent falls short of the integrity and good moral
discipline respondent.
character required from all lawyers. They are expected to uphold the dignity of the legal
profession at all times. The, trust and confidence clients repose in them require a high standard
A survey of cases involving conflicting interests on the part of counsel reveals that the Court
and appreciation of the latter’s duty to the former, the legal profession, the courts and the
has imposed on erring attorneys 12 either a reprimand, or a suspension from the practice of law
public. Indeed, the bar must maintain a high standard of legal proficiency as well as of honesty
from five (5) months13 to as high as two (2) years.14
and fair dealings. To this end, lawyers should refrain from doing anything that might tend to
lessen the confidence of the public in the fidelity, honesty and integrity of their profession. 7
WHEREFORE, Maximo G. Rodriguez is found guilty of violating Rule 15.03 of Canon 15 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility and is hereby SUSPENDED for six (6) months from the
In the present case, respondent clearly violated Rule 15.03 of Canon 15 of the Code of
practice of law, effective upon his receipt of this Decision. He is warned that a repetition of the
Professional Responsibility, which provides that “a lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests
same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.
except by written consent of all concerned given after full disclosure of the facts.”
Let copies of this Decision be entered in the record of respondent as attorney and served on
The Court explained in Buted v. Hernando:8
the IBP, as well as on the Court Administrator who shall circulate it to all courts for their
information and guidance.
“[A] lawyer represents conflicting interests when, in behalf of one client, it is his duty to contend
SO ORDERED.
for that which duty to another client requires him to oppose .
     Melo (Chairman), Sandoval-Gutierrez and Carpio, JJ., concur.
     Vitug, J., Abroad on official business.
“The obligation to represent the client with undivided fidelity and not to divulge his secrets
Respondent suspended from practice of law for six (6) months for violation of Rule 15.03,
or confidence forbids also the subsequent acceptance of retainers or employment from others in
Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
matters adversely affecting any interest of the client with respect to which confidence has been
reposed.”9 (Italics in the original)
Notes.—The lawyer’s oath is a source of obligations and violation thereof is a ground for
suspension, disbarment, or other disciplinary action. (Magdaluyo vs. Nace, 324 SCRA
In the case at bar, petitioners were the same complainants in the indirect contempt case and in
384 [2000])
the Complaint for forcible entry in Civil Case No. 11204.10 Respondent should have evaluated the
situation first before agreeing to be counsel for the defendants in the indirect contempt
The relationship between a lawyer and a client is highly fiduciary—it requires a high degree
proceedings. Attorneys owe undivided allegiance to their clients, and should at all times weigh
of fidelity and good faith. (Angeles vs. Uy, Jr., 330 SCRA 6 [2000])
their actions, especially in their dealings with the latter and the public at large. They must
conduct themselves beyond reproach at all times.
LEGAL ETHICS CASES NO. 6 13
The appointment of a lawyer as judge is not a valid reason for him not to properly address
and comply with the demand of his former client to pay and settle forthwith the amount he had
received in trust from the latter. (Sevilla vs. Salubre, 348 SCRA 592 [2000])
LEGAL ETHICS CASES NO. 6 14
A.C. No. 5098. April 11, 2012.*
JOSEFINA M. ANIÑON, complainant, vs.  ATTY. CLEMENCIO SABITSANA, JR., respondent. BRION, J.:

Attorney-Client Relationships; Conflict of Interests; The relationship between a lawyer We resolve this disbarment complaint against Atty. Clemencio Sabitsana, Jr. who is charged
and his/her client should ideally be imbued with the highest level of trust and confidence; Part of: (1) violating the lawyer’s duty to preserve confidential information received from his
of the lawyer’s duty in this regard is to avoid representing conflicting interests, a matter covered client;1 and (2) violating the prohibition on representing conflicting interests.2
by Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. —The relationship between a
lawyer and his/her client should ideally be imbued with the highest level of trust and confidence. In her complaint, Josefina M. Aniñon ( complainant) related that she previously engaged the
This is the standard of confidentiality that must prevail to promote a full disclosure of the client’s legal services of Atty. Sabitsana in the preparation and execution in her favor of a Deed of Sale
most confidential information to his/her lawyer for an unhampered exchange of information over a parcel of land owned by her late common-law husband, Brigido Caneja, Jr. Atty.
between them. Needless to state, a client can only entrust confidential information to his/her Sabitsana allegedly violated her confidence when he subsequently filed a civil case against her
lawyer based on an expectation from the lawyer of utmost secrecy and discretion; the lawyer, for the annulment of the Deed of Sale in behalf of Zenaida L. Cañete, the legal wife of Brigido
for his part, is duty-bound to observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all dealings and Caneja, Jr. The complainant accused Atty. Sabitsana of using the confidential information he
transactions with the client. Part of the lawyer’s duty in this regard is to avoid representing obtained from her in filing the civil case.
conflicting interests, a matter covered by Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility quoted below: Rule 15.03.—A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests Atty. Sabitsana admitted having advised the complainant in the preparation and execution
except by written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts. of the Deed of Sale. However, he denied having received any confidential information. Atty.
Sabitsana asserted that the present disbarment complaint was instigated by one Atty. Gabino
Same; Same; Tests to Determine whether or not Conflict of Interests is Present. —“The Velasquez, Jr., the notary of the disbarment complaint who lost a court case against him (Atty.
proscription against representation of conflicting interests applies to a situation where the Sabitsana) and had instigated the complaint for this reason.
opposing parties are present clients in the same action or in an unrelated action.” The
prohibition also applies even if the “lawyer would not be called upon to contend for one client The Findings of the IBP Investigating Commissioner
that which the lawyer has to oppose for the other client, or that there would be no occasion to
use the confidential information acquired from one to the disadvantage of the other as the two
In our Resolution dated November 22, 1999, we referred the disbarment complaint to the
actions are wholly unrelated.” To be held accountable under this rule, it is “enough that the
Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation,
opposing parties in one case, one of whom would lose the suit, are present clients and the
report and recommendation. In his Report and Recommendation dated November 28, 2003, IBP
nature or conditions of the lawyer’s respective retainers with each of them would affect the
Commissioner Pedro A. Magpayo Jr. found Atty. Sabitsana administratively liable for
performance of the duty of undivided fidelity to both clients.” Jurisprudence has provided three
representing conflicting interests. The IBP Commissioner opined:
tests in determining whether a violation of the above rule is present in a given case. One test is
whether a lawyer is duty-bound to fight for an issue or claim in behalf of one client and, at the
“In Bautista vs. Barrios, it was held that a lawyer may not handle a case to nullify a contract
same time, to oppose that claim for the other client. Thus, if a lawyer’s argument for one client
which he prepared and thereby take up inconsistent positions. Granting that Zenaida L. Cañete,
has to be opposed by that same lawyer in arguing for the other client, there is a violation of the
respondent’s present client in Civil Case No. B-1060 did not initially learn about the sale
rule. Another test of inconsistency of interests is whether the acceptance of a new relation
executed by Bontes in favor of complainant thru the confidences and information divulged by
would prevent the full discharge of the lawyer’s duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty
complainant to respondent in the course of the preparation of the said deed of sale, respondent
to the client or invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double-dealing in the
nonetheless has a duty to decline his current employment as counsel of Zenaida Cañete in view
performance of that duty. Still another test is whether the lawyer would be called upon in
of the rule prohibiting representation of conflicting interests.
the new relation to use against a former client any confidential information acquired through
their connection or previous employment.
In re De la Rosa clearly suggests that a lawyer may not represent conflicting interests in the
absence of the written consent of all parties concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts.
Attorneys; Disciplinary proceedings against lawyers are sui generis. —Disciplinary
In the present case, no such written consent was secured by respondent before accepting
proceedings against lawyers are sui generis. In the exercise of its disciplinary powers, the Court
employment as Mrs. Cañete’s counsel-of-record. x x x
merely calls upon a member of the Bar to account for his actuations as an officer of the Court
xxx
with the end in view of preserving the purity of the legal profession. We likewise aim to ensure
the proper and honest administration of justice by purging the profession of members who, by
Complainant and respondent’s present client, being contending claimants to the same
their misconduct, have proven themselves no longer worthy to be entrusted with the duties and
property, the conflict of interest is obviously present. There is said to be inconsistency of interest
responsibilities of an attorney. This is all that we did in this case. Significantly, we did this to a
when on behalf of one client, it is the attorney’s duty to contend for that which his duty to
degree very much lesser than what the powers of this Court allows it to do in terms of the
another client requires him to oppose. In brief, if he argues for one client this argument will be
imposable penalty. In this sense, we have already been lenient towards respondent lawyer.
opposed by him when he argues for the other client. Such is the case with which we are now
confronted, respondent being asked by one client to nullify what he had formerly notarized as a
ADMINISTRATIVE CASE in the Supreme Court. Disbarment.
true and valid sale between Bontes and the complainant.” (footnotes omitted) 3
  
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
The IBP Commissioner recommended that Atty. Sabitsana be suspended from the practice
of law for a period of one (1) year.4
LEGAL ETHICS CASES NO. 6
The Findings of the IBP Board of Governors
In a resolution dated February 27, 2004, the IBP Board of Governors resolved to adopt and
approve the Report and Recommendation of the IBP Commissioner after finding it to be fully
supported by the evidence on record, the applicable laws and rules.5 The IBP Board of
Governors agreed with the IBP Commissioner’s recommended penalty.
Atty. Sabitsana moved to reconsider the above resolution, but the IBP Board of Governors
denied his motion in a resolution dated July 30, 2004.
The Issue
The issue in this case is whether Atty. Sabitsana is guilty of misconduct for representing
conflicting interests.
The Court’s Ruling
After a careful study of the records, we agree with the findings and
recommendations of the IBP Commissioner and the IBP Board of Governors. 
The relationship between a lawyer and his/her client should ideally be imbued with the highest
level of trust and confidence. This is the standard of confidentiality that must prevail to promote
a full disclosure of the client’s most confidential information to his/her lawyer for an unhampered
exchange of information between them. Needless to state, a client can only entrust confidential
information to his/her lawyer based on an expectation from the lawyer of utmost secrecy and
discretion; the lawyer, for his part, is duty-bound to observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all
dealings and transactions with the client. 6 Part of the lawyer’s duty in this regard is to avoid
representing conflicting interests, a matter covered by Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility quoted below:
“Rule 15.03.—A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of
all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts.”
“The proscription against representation of conflicting interests applies to a situation where
the opposing parties are present clients in the same action or in an unrelated action.” 7 The
prohibition also applies even if the “lawyer would not be called upon to contend for one client
that which the lawyer has to oppose for the other client, or that there would be no occasion to
use the confidential information acquired from one to the disadvantage of the other as the two
actions are wholly unrelated.” 8 To be held accountable under this rule, it is “enough that the
opposing parties in one case, one of whom would lose the suit, are present clients and the
nature or conditions of the lawyer’s respective retainers with each of them would affect the
performance of the duty of undivided fidelity to both clients.”9
Jurisprudence has provided three tests in determining whether a violation of the above rule
is present in a given case.
“One test is whether a lawyer is duty-bound to fight for an issue or claim in behalf of one client
and, at the same time, to oppose that claim for the other client. Thus, if a lawyer’s argument for
one client has to be opposed by that same lawyer in arguing for the other client, there is a
violation of the rule.
Another test of inconsistency of interests is whether the acceptance of a new relation
would prevent the full discharge of the lawyer’s duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty
15
to the client or invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double-dealing in the
performance of that duty. Still another test is whether the lawyer would be called upon in
the new relation to use against a former client any confidential information acquired through
their connection or previous employment.”10 [emphasis ours]
On the basis of the attendant facts of the case, we find substantial evidence to support
Atty. Sabitsana’s violation of the above rule, as established by the following circumstances on
record:
One, his legal services were initially engaged by the complainant to protect her interest
over a certain property. The records show that upon the legal advice of Atty. Sabitsana, the
Deed of Sale over the property was prepared and executed in the complainant’s favor.
Two, Atty. Sabitsana met with Zenaida Cañete to discuss the latter’s legal interest over the
property subject of the Deed of Sale. At that point, Atty. Sabitsana already had knowledge that
Zenaida Cañete’s interest clashed with the complainant’s interests.
Three, despite the knowledge of the clashing interests between his two clients, Atty.
Sabitsana accepted the engagement from Zenaida Cañete.
Four, Atty. Sabitsana’s actual knowledge of the conflicting interests between his two clients
was demonstrated by his own actions: first, he filed a case against the complainant in behalf of
Zenaida Cañete; second, he impleaded the complainant as the defendant in the case; and third,
the case he filed was for the annulment of the Deed of Sale that he had previously prepared and
executed for the complainant.
By his acts, not only did Atty. Sabitsana agree to represent one client against another client
in the same action; he also accepted a new engagement that entailed him to contend and
oppose the interest of his other client in a property in which his legal services had been
previously retained.
To be sure, Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides an
exception to the above prohibition. However, we find no reason to apply the exception due to
Atty. Sabitsana’s failure to comply with the requirements set forth under the rule. Atty.
Sabitsana did not make a full disclosure of facts to the complainant and to Zenaida Cañete
before he accepted the new engagement with Zenaida Cañete. The records likewise show that
although Atty. Sabitsana wrote a letter to the complainant informing her of Zenaida Cañete’s
adverse claim to the property covered by the Deed of Sale and, urging her to settle the adverse
claim; Atty. Sabitsana however did not disclose to the complainant that he was also being
engaged as counsel by Zenaida Cañete.11Moreover, the records show that Atty. Sabitsana failed
to obtain the written consent of his two clients, as required by Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility. 
Accordingly, we find—as the IBP Board of Governors did—Atty. Sabitsana guilty of misconduct
for representing conflicting interests. We likewise agree with the penalty of suspension for one
(1) year from the practice of law recommended by the IBP Board of Governors. This penalty is
consistent with existing jurisprudence on the administrative offense of representing conflicting
interests.12
We note that Atty. Sabitsana takes exception to the IBP recommendation on the ground
that the charge in the complaint was only for his alleged disclosure of confidential information,
not for representation of conflicting interests. To Atty. Sabitsana, finding him liable for the latter
offense is a violation of his due process rights since he only answered the designated charge.
LEGAL ETHICS CASES NO. 6
We find no violation of Atty. Sabitsana’s due process rights. Although there was indeed a
specific charge in the complaint, we are not unmindful that the complaint itself contained
allegations of acts sufficient to constitute a violation of the rule on the prohibition against
representing conflicting interests. As stated in paragraph 8 of the complaint:
“Atty. Sabitsana, Jr. accepted the commission as a Lawyer of ZENAIDA CANEJA, now Zenaida
Cañete, to recover lands from Complainant, including this land where lawyer Atty. Sabitsana, Jr.
has advised his client [complainant] to execute the second sale[.]”
16
A reading of the conflict of interest rule reveals that the prohibition against NEA personnel
from participating in any question pertaining to a public service entity where he is directly or
indirectly interested has the purpose of preventing such personnel from exercising the power of
his office for personal pecuniary gain, which may cause grave damage and prejudice to public
interest. (National Electrification Administration vs. Civil Service Commission ,  611 SCRA 14
[2010])

Interestingly, Atty. Sabitsana even admitted these allegations in his answer. 13 He also
averred in his Answer that:

“6b. Because the defendant-to-be in the complaint (Civil Case No. B-1060) that he would file
on behalf of Zenaida Caneja-Cañete was his former client (herein complainant), respondent
asked [the] permission of Mrs. Cañete (which she granted) that he would first write a letter
(Annex “4”) to the complainant proposing to settle the case amicably between them but
complainant ignored it. Neither did she object to respondent’s handling the case in behalf of
Mrs. Cañete on the ground she is now invoking in her instant complaint. So respondent felt free
to file the complaint against her.”14

We have consistently held that the essence of due process is simply the opportunity to be
informed of the charge against oneself and to be heard or, as applied to administrative
proceedings, the opportunity to explain one’s side or the opportunity to seek a reconsideration
of the action or ruling complained of. 15 These opportunities were all afforded to Atty. Sabitsana,
as shown by the above circumstances.

All told, disciplinary proceedings against lawyers are sui generis.16 In the exercise of its
disciplinary powers, the Court merely calls upon a member of the Bar to account for his
actuations as an officer of the Court with the end in view of preserving the purity of the legal
profession. We likewise aim to ensure the proper and honest administration of justice by purging
the profession of members who, by their misconduct, have proven themselves no longer worthy
to be entrusted with the duties and responsibilities of an attorney. 17 This is all that we did in this
case. Significantly, we did this to a degree very much lesser than what the powers of this Court
allows it to do in terms of the imposable penalty. In this sense, we have already been lenient
towards respondent lawyer.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court resolves to ADOPT the findings and
recommendations of the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.
Atty. Clemencio C. Sabitsana, Jr. is found GUILTY of misconduct for representing conflicting
interests in violation of Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He is
hereby SUSPENDED for one (1) year from the practice of law.

Atty. Sabitsana is DIRECTED to inform the Court of the date of his receipt of this Decision
so that we can determine the reckoning point when his suspension shall take effect.
SO ORDERED.
Peralta,** Perez, Sereno  and Reyes, JJ., concur.
Atty. Clemencio C. Sabitsana, Jr. suspended from practice of law for one (1) year for
misconduct in representing conflicting interests.

Notes.—The prohibition against conflict of interest is founded on principles of public policy,

good taste and, more importantly, upon necessity; In the course of a lawyer-client relationship,
the lawyer learns all the facts connected with the client’s case, including its weak and strong
points, which knowledge must be considered sacred and guarded with care. ( Pacana, Jr. vs.
Pascual-Lopez,  594 SCRA 1 [2009])