WILFREDO ANGLO v. ATTY. JOSE MA. V. VALENCIA, et al.

751 SCRA 588

FACTS:

This is an administrative case arising from the complaint filed by

Wilfredo Anglo (Anglo) charging respondents Attys. Jose Ma. V. Valencia (Atty.
Valencia), Jose Ma. J. Ciocon (Atty. Ciocon), Philip Z. Dabao (Atty. Dabao), Lily
Uy-Valencia (Atty. Uy-Valencia), Joey P. De La Paz (Atty. De La Paz), Cris G.
Dionela (Atty. Dionela), Raymundo T. Pandan, Jr. (Atty. Pandan, Jr.), Rodney K.
Rubica (Atty. Rubica), and Wilfred Ramon M. Pealosa (Atty. Pealosa;
collectively, respondents) violating the Code of Professional Responsibility
(CPR).

Anglo alleged that he availed the services of the law firm owned by the
respondents, for two (2) consolidated labor cases. Atty. Dionela was assigned to
represent Anglo and the labor cases were terminated upon the agreement of
both parties.

When a criminal case for qualified theft was filed against Anglo and his
wife by FEVE Farms Agricultural Corporation (FEVE Farms), FEVE Farms was
represented by the same law firm who handled Anglos labor cases. Aggrieved,
Anglo filed this disbarment case against respondents, alleging that they
violated Rule 15.03, Canon 15 and Canon 21 of the CPR.

In their defense, respondents admitted that they indeed operated under

the name Valencia Ciocon Dabao Valencia De La Paz Dionela Pandan Rubica
Law Office, but explained that their association is not a formal partnership, but
one that is subject to certain arrangements and as such, the lawyers do not
discuss their clientele with the other associates, unless they agree that a case
be handled collaboratively. They averred that Anglos labor cases were solely
and exclusively handled by Atty. Dionela and not by the entire law firm. The
respondents also asserted that the qualified theft case filed by FEVE Farms
was handled by Atty. Pealosa, a new associate who had no knowledge of
complainants labor cases.

Atty. Dionela confirmed that he handled Anglos labor cases but averred
that it was terminated and that Anglo did not have any monthly retainer
contract. He also explained that he did not discuss the labor cases with the
other lawyers and that Anglo did not confide any secret during the time the
labor cases were pending that would have been used in the criminal case with
FEVE Farms. He also claimed that the other lawyers were not aware of the
details of Anglos labor cases nor did they know that he was the handling
counsel for complainant even after the said cases were closed and terminated.

The IBP Commissioner found respondents to have violated the rule on

conflict of interest and recommended that they be reprimanded with the
exception of Atty. Dabao who had already died. The IBP found that Anglo was
represented in the labor cases by the respondents acting together as a law firm
and not solely by Atty. Dionela. Consequently, there was indeed a conflict of
interest. Moreover, the termination of attorney-client relation provides no
justification for a lawyer to represent an interest adverse to or in conflict with
that of the former client. In a resolution, the IBP Board of Governors adopted
and approved the IBP Commissioners Report and Recommendation with
modification. Instead of the penalty of reprimand, the IBP Board of Governors
dismissed the case with warning that a repetition of the same or similar act
shall be dealt with more severely.

Anglo filed a motion for reconsideration which the IBP Board of

Governors granted. In a resolution, it adopted and approved the IBP
Commissioners Report and Recommendation, with modification. Aside from
reprimanding the respondents and the dismissal of the case against Atty.
Dabao, they suspended Atty. Dionela from the practice of law from one year,
being the handling counsel of Anglos labor cases.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the respondents are guilty of violating Canon 21 of the

CPR?

HELD:

Yes, the respondents are guilty of violating Canon 21 of the CPR which
provides:

CANON 21. A lawyer shall preserve the confidences and secrets of his client
even after the attorney-client relation is terminated.

As the Court observes, the lack of coordination in the respondents law

firm intolerably renders its clients confidences and secrets vulnerable to undue
and even adverse exposure, eroding in the balance the lawyer-client
relationships primordial ideal of unimpaired trust and confidence. The Court
clarifies that respondents pronounced liability is not altered by the fact that
the labor cases against Anglo had long been terminated. The termination of
attorney-client relation provides no justification for a lawyer to represent an
interest adverse to or in conflict with that of the former client. The clients
confidence once reposed should not be divested by mere expiration of
professional employment.

WHEREFORE, the respondents are found GUILTY of representing

conflicting interests in violation of Rule 15.03, Canon 15 and Canon 21 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility and are therefore REPRIMANDED for said
violations, with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar
infraction would be dealt with more severely. Meanwhile, the case against Atty.
Philip Dabao is DISMISSED in view of his death.

ATTY. CARMEN LEONOR M. ALCANTARA, et al. v. ATTY. EDUARDO C. DE

VERA

635 SCRA 674

FACTS:

This is a petition for review of a resolution of the Board of Governors of

the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) finding respondent Atty. Eduardo C.
De Vera liable for professional malpractice and gross misconduct and
recommending his disbarment.

Atty. De Vera was the former counsel of Rosario P. Mercado (Rosario) in a

civil case filed in 1984 with the RTC of Davao City and as administrative case
filed before the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Pursuant to the
favorable decision issued in favor of Rosario, Atty. De Vera garnished the bank
deposits of the defendants but he did not turn over the proceeds to Rosario.
When Rosario demanded for the proceeds of the garnishment, Atty De Vera
refused claiming that he had paid part of the money to the judge while the
balance was his for the attorneys fees. And as such, Rosario was prompted to
file an administrative case for disbarment against Atty. De Vera.

The IBP Board of Governors issued a resolution holding Atty. De Vera

guilty of infidelity in the custody and handling of clients funds and
recommending to the court his one-year suspension from the practice of law.
Following the release of the IBP resolution, Atty. De Vera filed a series of
lawsuits against the Mercado family except George Mercado. He also instituted
cases against the family corporation, the corporations accountant and the
judge who ruled against the reopening of the case where he tried to collect the
balance of his alleged fee from Rosario. Atty. De Vera also filed cases against
the chairman and the members of the IBP Board of Governors who voted to
recommend his suspension from the practice of law.

The complainants allege that Atty. De Vera committed barratry, forum

shopping, exploitation of family problems, and use of intemperate language
when he filed several frivolous and unwarranted lawsuits against the
complainants and their family members, their lawyers, and the family
corporation. They maintain that the primary purpose of the cases is to harass
and to exact revenge for the suspension meted out by the IBP against him.
Thus, they pray that Atty. De Vera be disbarred for malpractice and gross
misconduct.

Atty. De Vera, in his defense, denies all the allegations of the

complainants. He insisted that the lawsuits were not harassment suits as they
were filed in good faith and strong facts, that he was merely exhausting the
remedies allowed by law, that the case he and George filed against the
complainants arose from their perception of unlawful transgressions committed
by the complainants for which they must be held liable, and that the
complainants were the one who resorted to intemperate and vulgar language in
accusing him of extorting from Rosario shocking and unconscionable
attorneys fees.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Atty. De Vera is guilty of violating Canon 21 and Rule

21.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR)?

HELD:

Yes, Atty. De Vera is guilty of violating Canon 21 and Rule 21.02 of the
CPR. The Court ruled that Atty. De Vera not only filed frivolous and unfounded
lawsuits that violated his duties as an officer of the court in aiding in the
proper administration of justice, but he did so against a former client whom he
owes loyalty and fidelity. Canon 21 and Rule 21.02 of the CPR provides:

CANON 21. A lawyer shall preserve the confidences and secrets of his client
even after the attorney-client relation is terminated.

RULE 21.02. A lawyer shall not, to the disadvantage of his client, use
information acquired in the course of employment, nor shall he use the same to
his own advantage or that of a third person, unless the client with full
knowledge of the circumstances consents thereto.
 The cases filed by the respondent against his former client involved
matters and information acquired by the respondent during the time when he
was still Rosarios counsel. Information as to the structure and operations of
the family corporation, private documents, and other pertinent facts and
figures used as basis or in support of the cases filed by the respondent in
pursuit of his malicious motives were all acquired through the attorney-client
relationship with herein complainants. Such act is in direct violation of the
Canons and will not be tolerated by the Court.

WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Eduardo C. De Vera is hereby

DISBARRED from the practice of law effective immediately upon his receipt
of this Resolution.

REBECCA J. PALM v. ATTY. FELIPE ILEDAN, JR.

602 SCRA 12

FACTS:

The case before the Court is a disbarment case filed by Rebecca J. Palm
(Palm) against Atty. Felipe Iledan, Jr. (Atty. Iledan, Jr.) for revealing information
obtained in the course of an attorney-client relationship and for representing
an interest which conflicted with that of his former client, Comtech Worldwide
Solutions Philippines, Inc. (Comtech).

Palm is the president of Comtech, a corporation engaged in the business

of computer software development. From February 2003 to November 2003,
Atty. Iledan, Jr. served as Comtechs retained corporate lawyer. Palm personally
met with Atty. Iledan, Jr. to review corporate matters, including potential
amendments to the corporate by-laws. Prior to the completion of the
amendments of the by-laws, Palm became uncomfortable with the close
relationship between Atty. Iledan, Jr. and Elda Soledad (Soledad), a former
officer and director of Comtech, who resigned and was suspected of releasing
unauthorized disbursements of corporate funds. Thus, Comtech decided to
terminate the retainer agreement effective November 2003.

In a stockholders meeting held on January 10, 2004, Atty. Iledan, Jr.

attended as proxy for Gary Harrison (Harrison). Steven C. Palm (Steven) and
Deanna L. Palm, members of the Board of Directors, were present through
teleconference and when the meeting was called to order, Atty. Iledan, Jr.
objected to the meeting for lack of quorum, he asserted that Steven and
Deanna could not participate in the meeting because the by-laws had not yet
been amended to allow teleconferencing.

Comtechs new counsel sent a demand letter to Soledad to return or

account for the amount representing her unauthorized disbursements when
she was the Corporate Treasurer of Comtech. They received Soledads reply,
signed by Atty. Iledan, Jr. But due to Soledads failure to comply with
Comtechs written demands; Comtech filed a complaint for Estafa against
Soledad and Atty. Iledan, Jr. appeared as her counsel.

Consequently, Palm filed a complaint for disbarment against Atty. Iledan,

Jr. before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). In his answer, Atty. Iledan,
Jr. alleged that Soledad engaged his services before Comtech did. He also
alleged that from February to October 2003, neither Soledad nor Palm
consulted him on confidential or privileged matter concerning the operations of
the corporation. He further alleged that he has no access to any record of
Comtech; that Palm met with him regarding the procedure in amending the by-
laws to allow board members outside the Philippines to participate in board
meetings.

Atty. Iledan, Jr. alleged that there was no conflict of interest when he
represented Soledad in the case of Estafa filed by Comtech. He alleged that
Soledad was already a client before he became a consultant for Comtech and
that the criminal case was not related to the limited procedural queries he
handled with Comtech.

The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) found Atty. Iledan, Jr.
guilty of violation of Canon 21 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR)
and of representing interest in conflict with that of Comtech as his former
client. The IBP-CBD recommended that Atty. Iledan, Jr. be suspended from the
practice of law for one year. The IBP Board of Governors, in a resolution,
adopted and approved the recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner
with modification by suspending Atty. Iledan, Jr. from the practice of law for
two years.

Atty. Iledan, Jr. filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied by
the IBP Board of Governors but reduced his suspension from two years to one
year.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Iledan, Jr. is guilty of violating Canon 21 of the
CPR?

HELD:

No, Atty. Iledan, Jr. is not guilty of violating Canon 21 of the CPR which
provides:

CANON 21. A lawyer shall preserve the confidences and secrets of his client
even after the attorney-client relation is terminated.

The Court agrees with the IBP that in the course of Palms consultations,
Atty. Iledan, Jr. obtained the information about the need to amend the by-laws
to allow board members outside the Philippines to participate in board
meetings through teleconferencing. However, what transpired on January 10,
2004 was not a board meeting but a stockholders meeting. And he attended
the meeting as proxy for Harrison. In addition, although the information about
the necessity to amend the by-laws may have been given to Atty. Iledan, Jr., it
could not be considered confidential information.

It is settled that the mere relation of attorney and client does not raise a
presumption of confidentiality. The client must intend the communication to be
confidential. Thus, the disclosure made by Atty. Iledan, Jr. during the
stockholders meeting could not be considered a violation of his clients secrets
and confidence within the contemplation of Canon 21 of the CPR.

WHEREFORE, we DISMISS the complaint against Atty. Felipe Iledan, Jr. for
lack of merit.

CLARITA J. SAMALA v. ATTY. LUCIANO D. VALENCIA

512 SCRA 1

FACTS:
 The case before the Court is a disbarment case filed by Clarita J. Samala
(Samala) against Atty. Luciano D. Valencia (Valencia) on the following grounds:
(a) serving on two separate occasions as counsel for contending parties; (b)
knowingly misleading the court by submitting false documentary evidence; (c)
initiating numerous cases in exchange for nonpayment of rental fees; and (d)
having a reputation of being immoral by siring illegitimate children.

The Court, in its resolution referred the case to the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation. After a series of
hearings, the parties filed their respective memoranda and the case was
submitted for resolution. Commissioner Reyes, in his Report and
Recommendation, found Atty. Valencia guilty of violating Canon 15 and 21 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) and recommended the penalty of
suspension for six months.

The IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the report and
recommendation of Commissioner Reyes but increased the penalty of
suspension from six months to one year.

The Court adopts the report of the IBP Board of Governors except as to
the issue on immorality and as to the recommended penalty. On serving as
counsel for contending parties, the records show that Atty. Valencia indeed
represented conflicting interest when he represented Editha Valdez and Joseph
J. Alba against Salve Bustamante and her husband, in one case and Editha
Valdez against Joseph J. Alba, in another case.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Atty. Valencia is guilty of violating Canon 21 of the CPR?

HELD:

Yes, Atty. Valencia is guilty of violating Canon 21 of the CPR which

provides:

CANON 21. A lawyer shall preserve the confidences and secrets of his client
even after the attorney-client relation is terminated.

The Court ruled that the relation of attorney and client is one of trust
and confidence. Lawyers are expected not only to keep inviolate the clients
confidence, but also to avoid appearance of treachery and double-dealing for
only then can litigants be encouraged to entrust their secrets to their lawyers,
which is of paramount importance in the administration of justice.
 The stern rule against representation of conflicting interests is founded
on principles of public policy and good taste. It springs from the attorneys duty
to represent his client with undivided fidelity and to maintain inviolate the
clients confidence as well as from the injunction forbidding the examination of
an attorney as to any of the privileged communications of his client.

An attorney owes loyalty to his client not only in the case in which he has
represented him but also after the relation of attorney and client has
terminated. The bare attorney-client relationship with a client precludes an
attorney from accepting professional employment from the clients adversary
either in the same case or in a different but related action. A lawyer is
forbidden from representing a subsequent client against a former client when
the subject matter of the present controversy is related, directly, or indirectly, to
the subject matter of the previous litigation in which he appeared for the
former client.

ACCORDINGLY, the Court finds respondent Atty. Luciano D. Valencia

GUILTY of misconduct and violation of Canons 21, 10 and 1 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. He is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for
three (3) years, effective immediately upon receipt of herein Resolution.
 ELESIO C. PORMENTO, SR. v. ATTY. ELIAS A. PONTEVEDRA

454 SCRA 167

FACTS:

Pormento, Sr. alleges that Atty. Pontevedra is his familys legal counsel
having represented him and members of his family in all legal proceedings in
which they are involved. Based on the allegations in the complaint, the rift
between them began when Pormento, Sr.s counterclaim that is filed with the
Regional Trial Court of Bacolod City (RTC) was dismissed. Pormento, Sr. claims
that Atty. Pontevedra deliberately failed to inform him of the dismissal of his
counterclaim and consequently, he was deprived of his right to appeal said
order. He asserts that he only came to know of the existence of the trial courts
order when the mortgage over the parcel of land was extrajudicially foreclosed
by the adverse party. In order to recover his ownership over the said parcel of
land, complainant was constrained to hire a new lawyer as Atty. Pontevedra
refused to institute an action for the recovery of the subject property.

Pormento, Sr. also claims that to further protect his rights and interests
over the said parcel of land, he was forced to initiate a criminal case for
qualified theft against the relatives of the alleged new owner of the said land.
Atty. Pontevedra is the counsel of the accused in said case and as such, he
further claims that as part of his defense in said criminal case, Atty.
Pontevedra utilized pieces of confidential information he obtained from
complainant while the latter is still his client.

In a separate incident, Pormento, Sr. claims that when he bought a

parcel of land located at Escalante, Negros Occidental, the necessary
documents was prepared and notarized by Atty. Pontevedra. Since there was
another person who claims ownership of the property, he alleges that he
heeded respondents advice to build a small house on the property and allow
his (Pormento, Sr.s) nephew and his family to occupy the house to establish his
possession of the property. Subsequently, his nephew refused to vacate the
property prompting the former to file an ejectment case with the Municipal
Trial Court of Escalante, Negros Occidental. Atty. Pontevedra acted as the
counsel of Pormento, Sr.s nephew.
 Atty. Pontevedra denies the allegation that he did not inform complainant
of the trial courts order dismissing the latters counterclaim. He claims that
upon his receipt of the order of dismissal, he delivered to him a copy of the said
order, apprising him of its contents. As to his representation of the persons
against whom complainant filed criminal cases for theft, he argues that he
believes that there exists no conflict between his present and former clients
interests as the cases he handled for these clients are separate and distinct
from each other. With respect to the case for ejectment filed by Pormento, Sr.
against his nephew, he admits that it was he who notarized the deed of sale of
the parcel of land. However, he contends that what is being contested in the
said case is not the ownership of the subject land but the ownership of the
house built on the said land.

The Court referred the instant case to the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation. Investigating
Commissioner Gonzaga found respondent guilty of violating the Code of
Professional Responsibility. He recommended that respondent be meted the
penalty of suspension for one month. However, the IBP Board of Governors
resolved to annul and set aside the recommendation of the Investigating
Commissioner and instead approved the dismissal of the complaint for lack of
merit. The Court, however, does not agree with the dismissal of the complaint.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Atty. Pontevedra is guilty of violating Rule 21.02 of the

Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR)?

HELD:

Yes, Atty. Pontevedra is guilty of taking advantage of the information and

knowledge that he obtained in the course of his employment from Porment, Sr.
Rule 21.02 of Canon 21 of the CPR provides:

RULE 21.02. A lawyer shall not, to the disadvantage of his client, use
information acquired in the course of employment, nor shall he use the same to
his own advantage or that of a third person, unless the client with full
knowledge of the circumstances consents thereto.

It is unprofessional to represent conflicting interests, except by express

consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts. The obligation
to represent the client with undivided fidelity and not to divulge his secrets or
confidences 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.

It cannot be denied that when respondent was the counsel of

complainant, he became privy to the documents and information that
complainant possessed with respect to the said parcel of land. Hence, whatever
may be said as to whether or not respondent utilized against complainant any
information given to him in a professional capacity, the mere fact of their
previous relationship should have precluded him from appearing as counsel for
the opposing side.

WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Elias A. Pontevedra is found GUILTY of

representing conflicting interests and is hereby FINED in the amount of Ten
Thousand (P10,000.00) Pesos. He is WARNED that a repetition of the same or
similar acts will be dealt with more severely.