A.C. No. 10583. Feb a 18, 2015.

*
(fo me l CBD 09-2555)

ROBERTO BERNARDINO, complainan , vs. ATTY. VICTOR REY SANTOS, e ponden .

A.C. No. 10584. Feb a 18, 2015.*

(fo me l CBD 10-2827)

ATTY. JOSE MANGASER CARINGAL, complainan , vs.ATTY. VICTOR REY SANTOS, e ponden .

Attorne -Client Relationships; Legal Ethics; Conflict of Interests; Law ers must treat all information received
from their clients with utmost confidentialit in order to encourage clients to full inform their counsels of the
facts of their case. The le on conflic of in e e i ba ed on he fid cia obliga ion in a la e -clien
ela ion hip. La e m ea all info ma ion ecei ed f om hei clien i h mo confiden iali in o de
o enco age clien o f ll info m hei co n el of he fac of hei ca e. In Hornilla v. Att . Salunat, 405
SCRA 220 (2003), hi co e plained ha conflic of in e e mean : The e i conflic of in e e hen a la e
ep e en incon i en in e e of o o mo e oppo ing pa ie . The test is whether or not in behalf of one
client, it is the law er s dut to fight for an issue or claim, but it is his dut to oppose it for the other client. In
brief, if he argues for one client, this argument will be opposed b him when he argues for the other client. Thi
le co e no onl ca e in hich confiden ial comm nica ion ha e been confided, b al o ho e in hich no
confidence ha been be o ed o ill be ed. Al o, he e i conflic of in e e if he accep ance of he ne
e aine ill e i e he a o ne o pe fo m an ac hich ill inj io l affec hi fi clien in an ma e in
hich he ep e en him and al o he he he ill be called pon in hi ne ela ion o e again hi fi clien
an kno ledge ac i ed h o gh hei connec ion. Ano he e of he incon i enc of in e e i he he he
accep ance of a ne ela ion ill p e en an a o ne f om he f ll di cha ge of hi d of ndi ided fideli and

_______________

* SECOND DIVISION.

63

638 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Bernardino vs. Santos

lo al o hi clien o in i e picion of nfai hf lne o do ble dealing in he pe fo mance he eof.

Attorne s; Legal Ethics; Law ers are expected to be honest in all their dealings. A office of he co ,
la e ha e he d o phold he le of la . In doing o, la e a e e pec ed o be hone in all hei
dealing . Unfo na el , e ponden a fa f om being hone . Wi h f ll kno ledge ha R fina T la had
ano he hei , he acceded o Ma iano T la e e o p epa e he Affida i of Self-Adj dica ion.
Same; Integrated Bar of the Philippines; The authorit given to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) is
based on Rule 139-B, Section 1 of the Rules of Court, which provides that [p]roceedings for the disbarment,
suspension or discipline of attorne s ma be taken b the Supreme Court (SC) motu proprio, or b the IBP . . .
upon the verified complaint of an person. The a ho i gi en o he In eg a ed Ba of he Philippine i
ba ed on R le 139-B, Sec ion 1 of he R le of Co , hich p o ide ha [p] oceeding fo he di ba men ,
pen ion o di cipline of a o ne ma be aken b he S p eme Co motu proprio, o b he In eg a ed Ba
of he Philippine . . . pon he e ified complain of an pe on. Ho e e , hi a ho i i onl o a i hi
co i h he in e iga ion of he ca e, o de e mine fac al finding , and o ecommend, a be , he penal
ha ma be impo ed on he e ing la e .

ADMINISTRATIVE CASES in he S p eme Co . Viola ion of Canon 10, R le 10.01 and Canon 15,
R le 15.03 of he Code of P ofe ional Re pon ibili .
The fac a e a ed in he e ol ion of he Co .

RESOLUTION
/
LEONEN, J.:

1
The e ca e in ol e admini a i e Complain again A . Vic o Re San o fo iola ion of
Canon 10, R le 10.012

_______________

1 Rollo, pp. 2-3 and 326-340.

2 Id., a p. 333.

63

VOL. 750, FEBRUARY 18, 2015 639

Bernardino vs. Santos

and Canon 15, R le 15.033 of he Code of P ofe ional Re pon ibili .

In A.C. No. 10583, complainan Robe o C. Be na dino (Be na dino) filed a Le e -
Complain 4 again A . Vic o Re San o (A . San o ) befo e he In eg a ed Ba of he
Philippine , p a ing ha A . San o be in e iga ed and bjec ed o di ciplina ac ion.5
Be na dino alleged ha he dea h ce ifica e of hi a n , R fina de Ca o T la, a fal ified b
A . San o . A . San o made i appea ha R fina T la died in 1992, hen in fac , he died in
1990.6
A . San o ed he fal ified dea h ce ifica e o ppo he Affida i of Self-
Adj dica ion7 e ec ed b Ma iano T la, h band of R fina T la.8 Pa ag aph 6 of he Affida i of
Self-Adj dica ion p epa ed b A . San o ae :
Being her surviving spouse, I am the sole legal heir entitled to succeed to and inherit the estate of said deceased
who did not leave an descendant or an other heir entitled to her estate.9 (Empha i in he o iginal, nde co ing
pplied)

Yea la e , A . San o , on behalf of Ma il T la, da gh e of R fina and Ma iano T la,10 filed

a Complain 11 fo m

_______________

3 Id., a p. 329.
4 Id., a pp. 2-3.
5 Id., a p. 3.
6 Id., a p. 2. Acco ding o Be na dino, he fal ifica ion i fo he p po e of defea ing hi claim in he e a e of R fina
T la. A o ho he alleged fal ifica ion affec ed hi claim a no e plained.
7 In hi ca e, he complainan and he e ponden ed he e m Affida i of Self-Adj dica ion and Affida i of
Adj dica ion in e changeabl .
8 Id., a pp. 2-3.
9 Id.
10 Id., a p. 35.
11 Id., a pp. 9-20.

640

640 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Bernardino vs. Santos

/
 of mone i h p a e fo W i of P elimina Inj nc ion and empo a e aining o de again
Be na dino, docke ed a Ci il Ca e No. 09-269.12 The Complain in Ci il Ca e No. 09-269 alleged ha
Ma il T la i an hei of Ma iano T la,13 hich allegedl con adic he Affida i of Self-
14
Adj dica ion ha A . San o d af ed. Hence, A . San o ep e en ed clien i h conflic ing
in e e .15
In Ci il Ca e No. 09-269, A . San o e ified d ing c o -e amina ion:
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY:

ATTY. CARINGAL
....
Q: In o J dicial Affida i [,] o men ioned ha o kno Ma il C. T la[,] he plain iff[,] ince he a
abo fo ea old.
A: Ye , i .
Q: A a ma e of fac [,] o kno he e ell[,] con ide ing ha o a e a Ninong of he plain iff, i n i ?
A: I a no a Ninong hen I fi kne Ma il T la, I a j ecen l ma ied o one of he co in .
....
Q: No , he pa en of Ma il T la a e Ma iano C. T la and R fina C. T la?
THE WITNESS:
Ye , i . A pe m d and a pe m kno ledge of he ela ion hip[ ].
THE COURT:
Wha he name of he mo he ?

_______________

12 Id., a pp. 9-10.

13 Id., a p. 10.
14 Id., a p. 3.
15 Id.

641

VOL. 750, FEBRUARY 18, 2015 641

Bernardino vs. Santos

ATTY. CARINGAL:
R fina, o Hono . R fina T la.
Q: And ife died ahead of Ma iano, i n i ?
THE WITNESS:
Ye , i .
Q: And of co e, being he da gh e of R fina T la, Ma il i al o an hei of R fina T la, i n i ?
A: Of co e.
Q: No , e go b he e hic of he p ofe ion, M . Wi ne . Yo ecall[,] of co e[,] and admi ed [sic] in co
ha o d af ed hi doc men hich o e e ed o be ma ked a E hibi B.
THE COURT:
E hibi ?
ATTY. CARINGAL:
B, o Hono , in pa ic la efe ence o he Affida i of Adj dica ion fo he e aj dicial e lemen of he
in e a e e a e of he la e R fina De Ca o T la[,] and I ha e j lea ned f om o a o j e ified.
R fina i he mo he of he plain iff he e[,] Ma il T la.
THE WITNESS:
Ye , i .
Q: And a o admi ed, o p epa ed o d af ed [sic] hi E a J dicial.
A: Ye , i .
Q: O hi Affida i of Adj dica ion.
ATTY. REY SANTOS:
/
 A hi poin in ime, o Hono , I o ld objec o he e ion ega ding m legal e hic beca e i i no he
i e in hi ca e.
....
ATTY. CARINGAL:
....

642

642 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Bernardino vs. Santos

Q: . . . In hi doc men con i ing of one, o, h ee, fo and appea ing o ha e been d l no a i ed on o
abo 29 h [of] J ne 1994 i h doc men n mbe 28, page n mbe 7, book n mbe 23, e ie of 1994 befo e
No a P blic He nando P. Anga a. I call o a en ion o he doc men [,] mo e pa ic la l [,] pa ag aph 6
he eof and ma ked a E hibi 7-A fo he defendan [.] I ead in o he eco d and I o e, Being he i ing
po e, I am he ole legal hei en i led o cceed o and inhe i he e a e of he aid decea ed ho did no
lea e an de cendan , a cendan o an o he hei en i led o he e a e. 16 Mr. Witness, is this particular
provision that ou have drafted into this document . . . true or false?
ATTY. REY SANTOS:
Yo Hono , I o ld like o ei e a e ha an e ion ega ding he ma e ha o ld imp gn he
legi imac of he plain iff, Ma il T la[,] i impe inen and imma e ial in hi ca e[.] [I] a onl he ife
R fina T la [ ho] ha[ ] he igh o imp gn he legi imac of he plain iff[,] and ha ha been he bjec of m
con in ing objec ion f om he e beginning.
THE COURT:
B hen again[,] o ha e p e en ed hi doc men a o E hibi B[.] [Y]o ha e p ac icall opened he
floodga e o . . . e ion on hi doc men .
ATTY. REY SANTOS:
Onl fo he p po e [sic] of ho ing one o o
. . . p ope ie o ned b he la e Ma iano T la, o Hono . Tha i h ha onl [sic] po ion I ha e efe ed
o in ma king he aid doc men , o Hono .
THE COURT:
So, o no ef ed [sic] o an e he e ion?

_______________

16 Id., a p. 6.

643

VOL. 750, FEBRUARY 18, 2015 643

Bernardino vs. Santos

ATTY. REY SANTOS:

No, I am no ef ing o an e , I am j making a manife a ion.
ATTY. CARINGAL:
Wha i he an e , i i e o fal e, o Hono [?]
ATTY. REY SANTOS:
M an e ega ding he ame o ld be bjec o m objec ion on he ma e iali and impe inenc and
ele anc of hi e ion, o Hono [,] o hi ca e.
THE COURT:
So an a , he co ha ob e ed he con in ing objec ion befo e[,] and o be con i en i h he ling of he
co [,] I ill allo o o an e he e ion[.] [I] i e o fal e?
THE WITNESS:
No, ha i no e.
ATTY. CARINGAL:
Tha i no e. M . Wi ne , being a la e [,] o admi befo e hi co ha o ha e d af ed a doc men
ha ca ed he an fe of he e a e of he decea e[d] R fina T la.
THE WITNESS:
/
 Ye , i .
....
ATTY. CARINGAL
Q: This document, this particular provision that ou said was false, ou did not tell an bod [,] ten or five ears
later[,] that this is false, is it not?
THE WITNESS:
I called the attention of Mr. Mariano Turla[.] I . . . asked him what about Lulu17 she is entitled [sic] to a share
of properties and he . . . told me, Ako na ang bahala ka Lulu[,] hindi ko pababa aan an. So, he asked me to
proceed with the Affidavit of Adjudi-

_______________

17 A . San o , a i ne , a efe ing o Ma il T la.

644

644 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Bernardino vs. Santos

cation wherein he claimed the whole [sic] properties for himself.18 (Empha i pplied)

Ano he Complain 19 a filed again A . San o b A . Jo e Manga e Ca ingal (A .

Ca ingal). Thi a docke ed a A.C. No. 10584.20 Simila o Be na dino Complain , A . Ca ingal
alleged ha A . San o ep e en ed clien i h conflic ing in e e .21 He al o alleged ha in
ep e en ing Ma il T la, A . San o o ld nece a il go again he claim of Ma iano T la.22
Al o, in ep e en ing Ma il T la, A . San o a allegedl iola ing he o-called Dead Man
23
S a e beca e he [ o ld] be ili ing info ma ion o ma e of fac occ ing befo e he dea h of
hi decea ed clien . Simila l , he . . . [ o ld] be n c p lo l ili ing info ma ion ac i ed d ing
hi p ofe ional ela ion i h hi aid clien . . . ha [ o ld] con i e a b each of . . . o of
24
p i ileged comm nica ion[.]

_______________

18 Id., a pp. 55-69.

19 Id., a pp. 326-339.
20 Id., a p. 453.
21 Id., a p. 329.
22 Id., a p. 330.
23 Re . R le on E id., R le 130, Sec. 23 hich p o ide :
R le 130. Rules of Admissibilit .
SEC. 23. Disqualification b reason of death or insanit of adverse part . Pa ie o a igno of pa ie o a ca e, o
pe on in ho e behalf a ca e i p o ec ed, again an e ec o o admini a o o o he ep e en a i e of a decea ed
pe on, o again a pe on of n o nd mind, pon a claim o demand again he e a e of ch decea ed pe on o again
ch pe on of n o nd mind, canno e if a o an ma e of fac occ ing befo e he dea h of ch decea ed pe on o
befo e ch pe on became of n o nd mind.
24 Rollo, p. 330.

645

VOL. 750, FEBRUARY 18, 2015 645

Bernardino vs. Santos

A . Ca ingal f he alleged ha A . San o iola ed Canon 1225 of he Code of P ofe ional

Re pon ibili hen he filed e e al ca e again he o he claiman of Ma iano T la e a e.26 In
27
o he o d , he engaged in fo m hopping.

/
 In addi ion, A . San o allegedl iola ed Canon 10, R le 10.0128 of he Code of P ofe ional
Re pon ibili hen he d af ed Ma iano T la Affida i of Self-Adj dica ion. The Affida i ae
ha Ma iano T la i he ole hei of R fina T la, b A . San o kne hi o be fal e.29 A .
San o ife, L nn Ba ac, i Ma iano T la niece.30 A pa of he famil , A . San o kne ha
R fina T la had o he hei .31 A . Ca ingal f he alleged:
14.4 Being he la e of Ma iano T la in he d af ing of he doc men ome fif een ea ago, he i f ll
a a e of all he ci c m ance he ein eci ed. Mo eo e a ha ime, he [sic] L nn Ba ac San o a hen
emplo ed a he BIR [sic] ho a anged fo he pa men of he a e d e. The e i ome pec lia i in he nea
e p [sic] of a h band and ife eam he e he la e make he doc men hile he ife ho i a BIIR [sic]
emplo ee a ange fo he pa men of he a e d e he go e nmen ;

_______________

25 Code of P ofe ional Re pon ibili , Canon 12 A la e hall e e e e effo and con ide i hi d oa i in he
peed and efficien admini a ion of j ice.
26 Rollo, p. 331.
27 Id., a p. 333.
28 Code of P ofe ional Re pon ibili , Canon 10 A la e o e cando , fai ne and good fai h o he co .
R le 10.01 A la e hall no do an fal ehood, no con en o he doing of an in co ; no hall he mi lead o allo he
co o be mi lead b an a ifice.
29 Rollo, pp. 333-334.
30 Id., a p. 334.
31 Id.

646

646 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Bernardino vs. Santos

14.5 Re ponden a o ne co ld no ha e been mi aken abo he fac eci ed in he Affidavit of

Adjudication, etc. ha aid decea ed (R fina de Ca o T la) did not leave an descendant, x x x, or an other
heir entitled to her estate [sic] . . . [.]32 (Empha i in he o iginal)

A . Ca ingal a g ed ha A . San o a bo nd b he a emen in Ma iano T la affida i

33
ha R fina T la had no o he hei .
Mo eo e , A . San o allegedl con e ed f nd belonging o he hei of Ma iano T la fo hi
o n benefi . The f nd in ol ed e e en al income f om Ma iano T la p ope ie ha e e
34
ppo ed o be di ib ed o he hei . In ead, A . San o ecei ed he en al income.
La l , A . Ca ingal alleged ha A . San o ci ed he epealed A icle 262 of he Ci il Code in
hi a g men .35
In hi An e ,36 A . San o denied ha ing fal ified he dea h ce ifica e.37 He e plained ha he
dea h ce ifica e and he Affida i of Self-Adj dica ion e e gi en o him b Ma iano T la and ha
he a no a a e ha he e a a fal ified en in he dea h ce ifica e.38
A ega d he i e on conflic of in e e , A . San o a g ed ha he did no ep e en and a
no ep e en ing conflic ing in e e ince Ma iano T la a al ead dead.39 F he , he [ a ]
ep e en ing Ma il T la again ho e ho ha[d] an in e e in he fa he e a e. 40 Ma iano
T la Affida i of Self-Adj dica ion ne e a ed ha he e a no

_______________

32 Id.
33 Id., a p. 335.
34 Id., a p. 338.
35 Id.
36 Id., a pp. 131-137.
37 Id., a p. 131.
/
 38 Id., a p. 464.
39 Id., a pp. 465-466.
40 Id., a p. 466.

647

VOL. 750, FEBRUARY 18, 2015 647

Bernardino vs. Santos

o he legal hei b onl ha Ma iano T la a he ole hei of R fina T la. 41

Rega ding he allega ion of A . Ca ingal, A . San o in i ed ha he did no commi fo m
hopping beca e he a io ca e filed had diffe en i e .42
A o he con e ion of f nd , A . San o e plained ha he f nd ed e e being held b hi
clien a he pecial admini a i of he e a e of Ma iano T la.43Acco ding o A . San o ,
pa men of a o ne fee o of he e a e f nd co ld be con ide ed a e pen e of
admini a ion. 44 Al o, pa men of A . San o legal e ice a a ma e hich A . Ca ingal
had no anding o e ion.45
On he allega ion ha A . San o ci ed a epealed p o i ion of la , he di c ed ha A icle 262
of he Ci il Code i applicable beca e i a in fo ce hen Ma il T la bi h ce ifica e a
46
egi e ed.
The Commi ion on Ba Di cipline of he In eg a ed Ba of he Philippine ecommended ha
A . San o be pended fo h ee (3) mon h .47
I fo nd ha Be na dino failed o p o e hi allega ion ha A . San o kne ha he dea h
ce ifica e a fal ified and ed i o ppo Ma iano T la Affida i of Self-Adj dica ion.48
Like i e, A . Ca ingal failed o p o e ha A . San o con e ed f nd f om Ma iano T la
e a e.49

_______________

41 Id., a p. 465.
42 Id., a p. 466. Ba ed on he eco d of hi ca e, A . San o filed a ca e fo nla f l de aine , deli e of i le , and
e lemen .
43 Id., a p. 467.
44 Id.
45 Id., a p. 468.
46 Id.
47 Id., a p. 474.
48 Id., a p. 469.
49 Id.

64

648 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Bernardino vs. Santos

Wi h ega d o he ci a ion of a epealed p o i ion, he Commi ion on Ba Di cipline a ed ha

he e idence p e en ed did no p o e ha A . San o kno ingl ci ed a epealed la . 50
F he , A . San o did no engage in fo m hopping. The a io ca e filed in ol ed diffe en
pa ie and p a ed fo diffe en elief .51
Ho e e , he Commi ion on Ba Di cipline ag eed i h Be na dino and A . Ca ingal ha A .
San o ep e en ed clien i h conflic ing in e e .52 The Repo and Recommenda ion53 of he
Commi ion on Ba Di cipline a ed:
. . . Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibilit particularl Rule 15.03 pecificall p o c ibe
membe of he ba f om ep e en ing conflic ing in e e . The S p eme Co ha e plained ha he
p o c ip ion again ep e en a ion of conflic ing in e e find applica ion he e he conflic ing in e e a i e
/
 i h e pec o he ame gene al ma e and i applicable ho e e ligh ch ad e e in e e ma be; he fac
ha he conflic of in e e i emo e o me el p obable doe no make he p ohibi ion inope a i e.
....
. . . In he ca e a ba , he fac ha he e ponden ep e en ed Ma iano T la i no ec e . The e ponden
ha in a n mbe of pleading /mo ion /doc men and e en on he i ne and admi ed ha he d af ed
Ma iano T la Affidavit of Adjudication hich e p e l a e ha he a he ole hei of R fina T la.
And hen he af e a d ag eed o ep e en Ma il T la ho claimed o be Ma iano T la da gh e . To
b an ia e he claim ha he i Ma iano T la da gh e , he e ponden admi ed ha he elied on he

_______________

50 Id., a p. 470.
51 Id.
52 Id., a p. 471.
53 Id., a pp. 456-474.

64

VOL. 750, FEBRUARY 18, 2015 649

Bernardino vs. Santos

bi h ce ifica e p e en ed b Ma il T la[,] hich indica e ha he i no onl he da gh e of Ma iano

T la b al o of R fina T la a e idenced b he Bi h Ce ifica e p e en ed a ing ha R fina T la i
Ma il T la mo he . Thi mean ha Ma il T la a al o a igh f l hei o R fina T la inhe i ance and
a dep i ed of he ame beca e of he Affidavit of Adjudication hich he d af ed fo Ma iano T la[,] a ing
ha he i hi ife ole hei .
. . . To f he e plain, he e ponden [,] in ag eeing o ep e en Ma il T la[,] placed him elf in a po i ion
he e he i o ef e he claim in Ma iano T la Affidavit of Adjudication ha he i he onl hei of R fina
T la.54 (Ci a ion omi ed)

In he Re ol ion55 da ed Ma 10, 2013, he Boa d of Go e no of he In eg a ed Ba of he

Philippine (IBP Boa d of Go e no ) adop ed and app o ed he finding and ecommenda ion of he
Commi ion on Ba Di cipline.
A . San o filed a Mo ion fo Pa ial Recon ide a ion,56 hich a denied b he IBP Boa d of
Go e no in he Re ol ion57 da ed Ma ch 22, 2014.
Thi admini a i e ca e a fo a ded o hi co h o gh a le e of an mi al da ed J l 15,
58
2014, p an o R le 139-B, Sec ion 12(b) of he R le of Co hich p o ide :

RULE 139-B
DISBARMENT AND DISCIPLINE OF ATTORNEYS
SEC. 12. Review and decision b the Board of Governors.

_______________

54 Id., a pp. 471-473.

55 Id., a p. 455.
56 Id., a pp. 546-558.
57 Id., a p. 454.
58 Id., a p. 453.

650

650 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Bernardino vs. Santos

/
 ....
(b) If he Boa d, b he o e of a majo i of i o al membe hip, de e mine ha he e ponden ho ld be
pended f om he p ac ice of la o di ba ed, i hall i e a e ol ion e ing fo h i finding and
ecommenda ion hich, oge he i h he hole eco d of he ca e, hall fo h i h be an mi ed o he
S p eme Co fo final ac ion.

The i e in hi ca e a e: (1) he he e ponden A . San o iola ed he Code of P ofe ional

Re pon ibili ; and (2) he he he penal of pen ion of h ee (3) mon h f om he p ac ice of la
i p ope .
Thi co accep and adop he finding of fac of he IBP Boa d of Go e no Re ol ion.
Ho e e , hi co modifie he ecommended penal of pen ion f om he p ac ice of la f om
h ee (3) mon h o one (1) ea .
Canon 15, R le 15.03 of he Code of P ofe ional Re pon ibili ae :
CANON 15 A la e hall ob e e cando , fai ne and lo al in all hi dealing and an ac ion i h hi
clien .
....
R le 15.03 A la e hall no ep e en conflic ing in e e e cep b i en con en of all conce ned gi en
af e a f ll di clo e of he fac .

The le on conflic of in e e i ba ed on he fid cia obliga ion in a la e -clien ela ion hip.
La e m ea all info ma ion ecei ed f om hei clien i h mo confiden iali in o de o
enco age clien o f ll info m hei co n el of he fac of hei ca e.59 In Hornilla v.
60
Att . Salunat, hi co e plained ha conflic of in e e mean :

_______________

59 Samson v. Era, A.C. No. 6664, J l 16, 2013, 701 SCRA 241, 252 [Pe J. Be amin, En Banc].

651

VOL. 750, FEBRUARY 18, 2015 651

Bernardino vs. Santos

The e i conflic of in e e hen a la e ep e en incon i en in e e of o o mo e oppo ing

pa ie . The test is whether or not in behalf of one client, it is the law er s dut to fight for an issue or claim, but
it is his dut to oppose it for the other client. In brief, if he argues for one client, this argument will be opposed b
him when he argues for the other client. Thi le co e no onl ca e in hich confiden ial comm nica ion
ha e been confided, b al o ho e in hich no confidence ha been be o ed o ill be ed. Al o, he e i
conflic of in e e if he accep ance of he ne e aine ill e i e he a o ne o pe fo m an ac hich ill
inj io l affec hi fi clien in an ma e in hich he ep e en him and al o he he he ill be called
pon in hi ne ela ion o e again hi fi clien an kno ledge ac i ed h o gh hei connec ion. Ano he
e of he incon i enc of in e e i he he he accep ance of a ne ela ion ill p e en an a o ne f om
he f ll di cha ge of hi d of ndi ided fideli and lo al o hi clien o in i e picion of nfai hf lne o
do ble dealing in he pe fo mance he eof.61 (Empha i pplied, ci a ion omi ed)

Appl ing he e o de e mine he he conflic of in e e e i , e ponden o ld nece a il

ef e Ma iano T la claim ha he i R fina T la ole hei hen he ag eed o ep e en Ma il
T la. Wo e, he kne ha Ma iano T la a no he onl hei . A a ed in he Repo of he
Commi ion on Ba Di cipline:
Wo e[,] he e ponden him elf on he i ne and d ing hi Ap il 14, 2009 e imon in he Ci il Ca e
fo Sum of Mone with Pra er of Writ of Preliminar Injunction and Temporar Restraining Order docketed as
Civil Case No. 09-269 filed i h he RTC of Maka i Ci admi ed a follo : I called he a en ion of

/
_______________

60 453 Phil. 108; 405 SCRA 220 (2003) [Pe J. Yna e -San iago, Fi Di i ion].
61 Id., a pp. 111-112; p. 223.

652

652 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Bernardino vs. Santos

M . Ma iano T la[.] I . . . a ked him ha abo L l he i en i led [sic] o a ha e of p ope ie and he . . .

old me, Ako na ang bahala ka Lulu[,] hindi ko pababa aan an. So he a ked me o p oceed i h he Affida i
of Adj dica ion he ein he claimed he hole [sic] p ope ie fo him elf. Thi e admi ion p o e ha he
e ponden a p i o Ma il T la anding a a legal and igh f l hei o R fina T la e a e.62 (Ci a ion
omi ed)

Ho e e , R le 15.03 p o ide fo an e cep ion, pecificall , b i en con en of all conce ned

gi en af e a f ll di clo e of he fac . 63 Re ponden had he d o info m Ma iano T la and
Ma il T la ha he e i a conflic of in e e and o ob ain hei i en con en .
Ma iano T la died on Feb a 5, 2009,64 hile e ponden ep e en ed Ma il T la in Ma ch
2009.65 I i nde andable h e ponden a nable o ob ain Ma iano T la con en . S ill,
e ponden did no p e en e idence ho ing ha he di clo ed o Ma il T la ha he p e io l
ep e en ed Ma iano T la and a i ed him in e ec ing he Affida i of Self-Adj dica ion. Th , he
allega ion of conflic of in e e again e ponden a fficien l p o en.
Like i e, e accep and adop he IBP Boa d of Go e no finding ha e ponden iola ed Canon
10, R le 10.01 of he Code of P ofe ional Re pon ibili , hich a e :
CANON 10 A la e o e cando , fai ne and good fai h o he co .
R le 10.01 A la e hall no do an fal ehood, no con en o he doing of an in co ; no hall he mi lead
o allo he co o be mi lead b an a ifice.

_______________

62 Rollo, p. 494.
63 Code of Professional Responsibilit , Canon 15, R le 15.03.
64 Rollo, p. 21.
65 Id., a pp. 18 and 20.

653

VOL. 750, FEBRUARY 18, 2015 653

Bernardino vs. Santos

In he Repo , he Commi ion on Ba Di cipline e plained:

Co olla o he fo egoing, he Commi ion b i e of he doc ine res ipsa loquitor [sic] find ha he
e ponden ac of failing o h a hi clien Ma iano T la f om filing he Affidavit of Adjudication de pi e . . .
hi kno ledge of he e i ence of Ma il T la a a po ible hei o he e a e of R fina T la, he e ponden
failed o phold hi obliga ion a a membe of he ba o be he e a d of j ice and p o ec o of ha i j ,
legal and p ope . Th in failing o do hi d and ac ing di hone l [,] no onl a he in con a en ion of he
La e Oa h b a al o in iola ion of Canon 10, Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibilit .66 (Empha i in he o iginal)

/
 A office of he co , la e ha e he d o phold he le of la . In doing o, la e a e
67
e pec ed o be hone in all hei dealing . Unfo na el , e ponden a fa f om being hone .
Wi h f ll kno ledge ha R fina T la had ano he hei , he acceded o Ma iano T la e e o
68
p epa e he Affida i of Self-Adj dica ion.
Thi co no e ha he o ding of he IBP Boa d of Go e no Re ol ion da ed Ma 10, 2013
and Ma ch 22, 2014 eem o impl ha i i he In eg a ed Ba of he Philippine ha ha he
a ho i o impo e anc ion on la e . Thi i ong.
The a ho i o di cipline membe of he Ba i e ed in hi co nde he 1987 Con i ion:

_______________

66 Id., a p. 494.
67 Sonic Steel Industries, Inc. v. Chua, A.C. No. 6942, J l 17, 2013, 701 SCRA 340, 350 [Pe J. Pe al a, Thi d Di i ion].
68 Rollo, p. 494.

654

654 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Bernardino vs. Santos

ARTICLE VIII
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
....
Sec ion 5. The S p eme Co hall ha e he follo ing po e :
....
(5) P om lga e le conce ning he p o ec ion and enfo cemen of con i ional igh , pleading, p ac ice,
and p oced e in all co , the admission to the practice of law, he in eg a ed ba , and legal a i ance o he
nde p i ileged. . . . (Empha i pplied)

Zaldivar v. Gon ale 69 el cida ed on hi co plena di ciplina a ho i o e

a o ne 70 and di c ed:
We begin b efe ing o he a ho i of he S p eme Co o di cipline office of he co and membe of
he co and membe of he Ba . The S p eme Co , a eg la and g a dian of he legal p ofe ion, ha
plena di ciplina a ho i o e a o ne . The a ho i o di cipline la e em f om he Co
con i ional manda e o eg la e admi ion o he p ac ice of la , hich incl de a ell a ho i o eg la e
he p ac ice i elf of la . Q i e apa f om hi con i ional manda e, he di ciplina a ho i of he S p eme
Co o e membe of he Ba i an inhe en po e inciden al o he p ope admini a ion of j ice and
e en ial o an o de l di cha ge of j dicial f nc ion . . . .
. . . The di ciplina a ho i of he Co o e membe of he Ba i b co olla o he Co e cl i e
po e of admi ion o he Ba . A la e [sic] i no me el a p ofe ional b al o an office of he co and a
ch, he i called pon o ha e in he a k and e-

_______________

69 248 Phil. 542; 166 SCRA 316 (1988) [Per Curiam, En Banc].
70 Id., a p. 554; p. 330.

655

VOL. 750, FEBRUARY 18, 2015 655

Bernardino vs. Santos

pon ibili of di pen ing j ice and e ol ing di p e in ocie .71 (Ci a ion omi ed)

/
 Thi co a ho i i e a ed nde R le 138 of he R le of Co , pecificall :
RULE 138
ATTORNEYS AND ADMISSION TO BAR
....
SEC. 27. Disbarment or suspension of attorne s b Supreme Court, grounds therefor. A member of the bar
ma be disbarred or suspended from his office as attorne b the Supreme Court fo an decei , malp ac ice, o
o he g o mi cond c in ch office, g o l immo al cond c , o b ea on of hi con ic ion of a c ime in ol ing
mo al pi de, o fo an iola ion of he oa h hich he i e i ed o ake befo e admi ion o p ac ice, o fo a
ilf l di obedience appea ing a an a o ne fo a pa o a ca e i ho a ho i o o do. The p ac ice of
olici ing ca e a la fo he p po e of gain, ei he pe onall o h o gh paid agen o b oke , con i e
malp ac ice. (Empha i pplied)

In Ramire v. Buha ang-Margallo,72 hi co empha i ed he a ho i of hi co o impo e

di ciplina ac ion on ho e admi ed o he p ac ice of la .
Pa en he icall , i i hi co ha ha he con i ionall manda ed d o di cipline la e .73 Unde he
c en le , he d o a i fac finding can be delega ed o he In eg a ed Ba of he Philippine . The
finding of he In eg a ed Ba , ho e e , can onl be ecommenda o , con i en i h he con i ional po e

_______________

71 Id., a pp. 554-556; pp. 330-332.

72 A.C. No. 10537, Feb a 3, 2015, 749 SCRA 13, 24 [Pe J. Leonen, En Banc].

656

656 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Bernardino vs. Santos

of hi co .I ecommended penal ie a e al o, b i na e, ecommenda o .74

The a ho i gi en o he In eg a ed Ba of he Philippine i ba ed on R le 139-B, Sec ion 1 of

he R le of Co , hich p o ide ha [p] oceeding fo he di ba men , pen ion o di cipline of
a o ne ma be aken b he S p eme Co motu proprio, o b he In eg a ed Ba of he
Philippine . . . pon he e ified complain of an pe on. Ho e e , hi a ho i i onl o a i
hi co ih he in e iga ion of he ca e, o de e mine fac al finding , and o ecommend, a be ,
he penal ha ma be impo ed on he e ing la e .
We ei e a e he di c ion in Tenoso v. Att . Echane :75
Time and again, hi Co empha i e ha he p ac ice of la i imb ed i h p blic in e e and ha a
la e o e b an ial d ie no onl o hi clien , b al o o hi b e h en in he p ofe ion, o he co , and
o he na ion, and ake pa in one of he mo impo an f nc ion of he S a e he admini a ion of j ice
a an office of he co . Acco dingl , [l]a e a e bo nd o main ain no onl a high anda d of legal
p oficienc , b al o of mo ali , hone , in eg i and fai dealing. 76 (Ci a ion omi ed)

Onl hi co can impo e anc ion on membe of he Ba . Thi di ciplina a ho i i g an ed

b he Con i ion and canno be elin i hed b hi co .77The Re ol ion of he In eg a ed Ba
of he Philippine a e, a be , ecommenda o , and i finding and ecommenda ion

_______________

73 Con . (1987), A . VIII, Sec. 5(5).

74 Ramire v. Buha ang-Margallo, supra no e 72.
75 A.C. No. 8384, Ap il 11, 2013, 696 SCRA 1 [Pe J. Leonen, En Banc].
76 Id., a p. 6.
/
 77 In re Almacen, No. L-27654, Feb a 18, 1970, 31 SCRA 562, 601 [Pe J. Ca o, En Banc].

657

VOL. 750, FEBRUARY 18, 2015 657

Bernardino vs. Santos

ho ld no be e a ed i h Deci ion and Re ol ion ende ed b hi co .

WHEREFORE, e find e ponden A . Vic o Re San o g il of iola ing Canon 15, R le
15.03 and Canon 10, R le 10.01 of he Code of P ofe ional Re pon ibili . The finding of fac and
ecommenda ion of he Boa d of Go e no of he In eg a ed Ba of he Philippine da ed Ma 10,
2013 and Ma ch 22, 2014 a e ACCEPTED ADOPTED MODIFICATION ha he
penal of pen ion f om he p ac ice of la fo one (1) ea i impo ed pon A . Vic o Re
San o . He i a ned ha a epe i ion of he ame o imila ac hall be deal i h mo e e e el .
Le a cop of hi Re ol ion be f ni hed he Office of he Ba Confidan , o be appended o
e ponden pe onal eco d a a o ne , o he In eg a ed Ba of he Philippine , and o he Office of
he Co Admini a o fo di emina ion o all co h o gho he co n fo hei info ma ion
and g idance.
SO ORDERED.

Carpio (Chairperson), Velasco, Jr.,** Del Castillo and Mendo a, JJ., conc .

Att . Victor Re Santos guilt of violating Canon 15, Rule 15.03 and Canon 10, Rule 10.01 of Code
of Professional Responsibilit . Findings of fact and recommendations of Board of Governors of IBP
accepted and adopted with modification.

N . A clien ha he ab ol e igh o e mina e he a o ne -clien ela ion hip a an ime

i ho i ho ca e. (Malvar vs. Kraft Food Phils., Inc., 705 SCRA 242 [2013])