A.C. No.

10556 (NOTICE)
DENIS GUY MARTIN, complainant v. ATTY. LETICIA E. ALA, respondent

FACTS:
This is an administrative case for disbarment stemming from a Complaint filed by
complainant against respondent for violation of Canon 21 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.

Martin is the estranged husband of respondent’s sister, Rebecca Ala Martin.

Complainant engaged the services of respondent; In the filing of a counter-affidavit
and other documents in a criminal complaint, preparing demand letters concerning
bouncing checks, and represented the complainant’s company, ADC Construction,
Inc.

When complainant's marriage with Rebecca broke down, however, respondent

served as her sister's counsel in the filing of cases against complainant, all in
relation to RA 9262 or Anti WAVC. (Applying for protection order, filing of
complaint-affidavit, and representing her.)

Complainant asserts that in acting as counsel for Rebecca, respondent represented

conflicting interests which warrant the imposition of administrative sanctions
against her.

Professing innocence, respondent in her Verified Answer denied ever having

complainant as a client. She pointed out, inter alia, complainant's failure to produce
the documents that she purportedly prepared as his alleged counsel.

Complainant's only connection with her law practice, respondent asserted, only
occurred when her law firm, Cruz Durian Alday and Cruz Matters, assisted the
Drilling and Blasting Management Group (DBMG) in some legal matters for free.
It was Rebecca who served as President of DBMG, and complainant was a "mere
free-loader" in the said company. Thus, no client-attorney relationship ever existed
between complainant and respondent.

Commissioner of the IBP Report and Recommendation

IBP Commission Edmund Espina found respondent guilty of representing
conflicting interests. In addition, the Commissioner declared respondent at fault for
tolerating the filing of malicious and baseless suits against complainant, as well as
for using tactless, abusive and offensive language in her pleadings. She
recommended that respondent Atty. Leticia E. Ala be SUSPENDED from the
practice of law for one (1) year with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the
same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.

Board of Governors of the IBP adopted and approved the findings of the
Commissioner but modified the penalty to suspension from the practice of law for
two (two) months.

On August 15, 2014, respondent filed with the IBP Board of Governors a Verified
Motion for Clarification and Reconsideration which reiterated her accusations of
misconduct on the part of Commissioner Espina. The same was referred to the
Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) for appropriate action.

The OBC affirmed the findings of the IBP and recommended respondent to be
suspended for a period of one (1) year for violations of Rule 15. 03, Canon 15 and
Rule 8.01, Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

1. WON Respondent is guilty of using abusive, offensive and improper

language in her pleadings? (YES)
2. WON Respondent is guilty of representing clients with conflicting interests?
(NO)

RULING:

In the case at bar, the relevant provisions of the Code of Professional

Responsibility provide:

Canon 8-x xx
Rule 8.01 - A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language which is
abusive, offensive or otherwise improper.

Canon 15-x xx
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.
 1. Yes. Respondent is guilty of using abusive, offensive and improper language
in her pleadings

The adversarial nature of our legal system has tempted members of the bar to use
strong language in pursuit of their duty to advance the interests of their clients.
Though a lawyer's language may be forceful and emphatic, it should always be
dignified and respectful, befitting the dignity of the legal profession. The use of
intemperate language and unkind ascriptions has no place in the dignity of the
judicial forum.

While the Court understands the deeply personal feelings and entanglements
involved in the instant case with respondent being administratively charged by her
sister's estranged husband, respondent ought to be reminded that the language she
has employed is highly unbecoming of a member of the legal profession. Worse,
respondent in advocating for her innocence has attributed - without any evidence -
serious doubts and imputed malice on our legal institutions such as the DOJ, the
CA, and the IBP.

Surely, the "sobriety of speech demanded of a lawyer" should have implored

respondent not to "spill over the walls of decency or propriety” in defending
herself. That she chose to diminish the level of discourse to mere gossip-
mongering is most unfortunate. Disciplinary action against respondent is,
therefore, incumbent upon this Court as the "guardian of the legal profession."

2. Respondent is not guilty of representing clients with conflicting interests.

The test to determine the existence of a conflict of interest involving a lawyer and
opposing clients was explained in Capinpin, Jr. v. Ce sa, Jrr, to wit :

There is conflict of interest when a lawyer represents inconsistent interests of two

or more opposing parties. The test is whether or not on behalf of one client, it is the
lawyer's duty to fight for an issue or claim, but it is his duty to oppose it for the
other client. In brief, if he argues for one client, this argument will be opposed by
him when he argues for the other client. This rule covers not only cases in which
confidential communications have been confided, but also those in which no
confidence has been bestowed or will be used. x x x. Another test of the
inconsistency of interests is whether the acceptance of a new relation will prevent
an attorney from the full discharge of his duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty to
his client or invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double-dealing in the performance
thereof. (Citations omitted)
The raison d'etre for the rule against the representation of conflicting interests was
elucidated by this Court in Pacana, Jr. v. Pascual-Lopez, thus:

This prohibition 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. Such knowledge must be considered sacred and guarded with care.
No opportunity must be given to him to take advantage of his client; for if the
confidence is abused, the profession will suffer by the loss thereof. It behooves
lawyers not only to keep inviolate the client's confidence, but also to avoid the
appearance of treachery and double-dealing for only then can litigants be
encouraged to entrust their secrets to their lawyers, which is paramount in the
administration of justice. It is for these reasons that we have described the
attorney-client relationship as one of trust and confidence of the highest degree.

The SC cited the case of Hierro v. Nava (on additional info) as an example on
when a lawyer is guilty of representing conflict of interest. In this case, by
enumerating the cases where he represented his former client as counsel, Atty.
Nava in effect used the privileged information that he obtained against him. This is
tantamount to betraying his former client's trust.

However, Hierro finds no application in the present case. There is no showing that
respondent, in representing her sister Rebecca in filing VAWC cases against
complainant, had used any confidential information that she obtained from
complainant against him.

In fact, the records do not even show the extent of the confidential information that
complainant purportedly conveyed to respondent. True, respondent admitted that
she helped complainant in the preparation of affidavits and other documents for the
latter's personal cases. However, there is no evidence of any correlation between
the said cases and the VAWC cases that respondent's sister filed against
complainant.

The penalty to be meted to an erring lawyer rests on sound judicial discretion. In

the cases of Noble III v. Ailes, The Law firm of Chavez Miranda Aseoche v.
Lazaro, and, more recently, Parks v. Misa, Jr., the Court admonished lawyers for
employing abusive, offensive and intemperate language in their pleadings as well
as in the course of their dealings with their colleagues in the legal profession.
The Court applies the same penalty to respondent, with a stem warning that the
commission of the same or similar acts shall be dealt with more severely.

WHEREFORE, the Court finds Atty. Leticia E. Ala GUILTY of violating Canon
8.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, she is hereby
ADMONISHED to be more circumspect in dealing with her professional
colleagues and to refrain from using language that is abusive, offensive or
otherwise improper in her pleadings. Atty. Ala is STERNLY WARNED that a
repetition of the same or similar acts shall be dealt with more severely.

ADDITIONAL INFO:
TACTLESS, ABUSIVE AND OFFENSIVE LANGUAGE IN HER
PLEADINGS
3.3.c Herein Complainant's Counsel should be cited for gross ignorance of the law.
It is getting very obvious that herein Complainant's counsel in this present case is
very careless - flling a disbarment case against another lawyer when he himself is
GROSSLY IGNORANT of the law.
3.3.d It appears that said counsel has just been requested by some other diabolic
and desperate counsel of herein Complainant who has SUCCE(S]SIVELY LOST
in all of herein Complainant's cases elsewhere despite being paid millions of pesos
in professional fees. It appears that some diabolical lawyers retained by herein
Complainant will not stop filing just about any case for money, unmindful that
herein Complainant does NOT even give financial support to his sons. xxxx
4.3 Smarting from his legal loss in France, herein Complainant changed counsels
and engaged an Atty. VICENTE BALISADO, who bandied about his having been
the counsel for the RAPE case of a disgraced and convicted lawmaker. xxxx
4.4 x x x Despite the fact that Atty. Balisado succeeded in harnessing his much-
vaunted influence at the Department of Justice (where he formerly came from) and
getting a Resolution from the Secretary of Justices [sic] directing the Prosecution
Service of Parafiaque "to withdraw the Information filed against herein
Complainant with RTC-Branch 260 of Parafiaque City" xx x.
xx x Atty. Balisado again flexed his muscle by having no less than State Prosecutor
AMOR ROBLES file the Motion to Withdraw Information at RTC-Branch 260 of
Parafiaque, to which the City Prosecutor of Parafiaque meekly signed his
conformity to. xxxx
When the Court of Appeals directed that a government doctor examine Jean Marc,
Atty. Balisado (also a former employee at the Court of Appeals) again flexed his
muscles at the Court of Appeals by distorting the proceedings thereat, got a DR.
ROMMEL PAP A of the NBI to examine the boy JUST A DAY BEFORE THE
SECOND HEARING AT THE COURT OF APPEALS, succeeded in taking the
boy out of the Serenity House in Tagaytay City and transferred the boy to ROADS
and BRIDGES Center in Pasig City, a private facility which said Dr. Papa
established and co-own [sic]. xx x
What these ambulance-chasing lawyers abetting the oppressive character of this
alien of a Complainant do not seem to realize is that by harassing another lawyer
carelessly, they are exposing themselves to counter-charges. Sufficient unto the
day is the evil thereof.

HIERRO v. NAVA II
Atty. Plaridel C. Nava II (Atty. Nava) was found guilty of representing conflicting
interests when he represented his former client's wife in the filing of a Violence
Against Women and their Children (VAWC) case against the said former client.
The Court discussed:

In the instant case, it is undisputed that Atty. Nava became the retained counsel of
Hierro in the latter's cases and also as counsel for Annalyn in the petition for the
issuance of a TPO against Hierro. It must be highlighted that the petition for the
issuance of a TPO contains reference to the criminal cases that were handled by
Atty.
Nava to demonstrate Hierro's propensity for violence in order to show supposed
maltreatment of Hierro to Annalyn, to wit:
Xxxx

14. [Hierro's] history of violence can be gleaned from the following criminal cases
he is presently facing in court which were filed by persons, thus:
Xxxx

Atty. Nava was the lawyer of Hierro in seven of the eight cases. As defense
counsel for Hierro, Atty. Nava advocates the innocence of his client in these cases.
However, in citing these as part of the petition for the issuance of a TPO, in effect,
he is implying that there is merit in these cases which is diametrically opposed to
his position as defense counsel of Hierro. This clearly violates the rule against
conflict of interest.