55 Martin v. Ala, A.C. No.

10556 (Notice), June 30, 2021

Facts:

Complainant is the estranged husband of respondent's sister, Rebecca Ala Martin (Rebecca).
Complainant claims that while he was still living with Rebecca, he engaged respondent's services as
counsel in his personal and business affairs. In particular, respondent allegedly assisted complainant in
the filing of a counter-affidavit and other documents when the latter was a respondent in a criminal
complaint filed before the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Malolos, Bulacan; prepared a demand
letter concerning bouncing checks which were issued to complainant; and represented complainant's
company, ADC Construction, Inc., in a case that was file against it.

When complainant's marriage with Rebecca broke down, however, respondent served as her sister's
counsel in the filing of cases against complainant, to wit: (a) Petition for the issuance of a Protection
Order 2 under Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9262; and (b) Complaint-Affidavit 3 for violation 3 of R.A. No. 9262
where respondent was listed as both witness and counsel 4 of Rebecca. The records show that
respondent represented Rebecca not only in the initial filing of these cases but also in all subsequent
proceedings with the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Court of Appeals (CA).

Complainant asserts that in acting as counsel for Rebecca, respondent represented conflicting interests
which warrant the imposition of administrative sanctions against her.

IBP: In his Report and Recommendation dated August 7, 2008 7 Commissioner Edmund T. Espina
(Commissioner Espina) found respondent guilty of representing conflicting interests. In addition,
Commissioner Espina 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.

As shown in the pleadings of the complainant:

xxx filing a disbarment case against another lawyer when he himself is GROSSLY IGNORANT of the law xx

xxx 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. xxx

xxx 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 xxx

Issue:

Whether the respondent is guilty of committing a breach of Rule 8.01 (Yes) and Rule 15.03 (NO)

Ruling:

Rule 8.01 - A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language which is abusive, offensive or
otherwise improper.
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. Language 26 abounds with countless possibilities for one to
be emphatic but respectful, convincing but not derogatory, and illuminating but not offensive.

In the case at bar, 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 29 implored respondent not to "spill
over the walls of decency or propriety" in 30 defending herself. That she chose to diminish the level of
discourse to mere gossip-mongering is most unfortunate.

II

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.

There is conflict of interest when a lawyer represents inconsistent interests of two or more opposing
parties. The test is whether or not in 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. 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

In this 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.

Not a single copy of the documents that respondent allegedly prepared for complainant was adduced by
the latter. Neither did respondent make any reference to any of these documents in her pleadings in her
sister's VAWC cases. In the absence of any connection between complainant's personal cases and his
wife's VAWC cases, the Court simply cannot sanction respondent for representing conflicting interests.

Penalty: Admonished and sternly warned.