Professional Documents
Culture Documents
_______________
* FIRST DIVISION.
321
VOL. 479, JANUARY 23, 2006 321
322
323
OFFICE, under which, his name and signature appear; while herein
respondent signed the pleadings for the Gatcheco spouses only with his
name, without any mention of the law firm. We also note the observation of
the IBP Commissioner Reyes that there was no malice and bad faith in
respondent’s acceptance of the Gatchecos’ cases as shown by the move of
complainant to withdraw the case.
RESOLUTION
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.:
324
_______________
1 Rule 10.01—A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of
any in court; nor shall he mislead or allow the court to be misled by any artifice.
2 Rule 13.01—A lawyer shall not extend extraordinary attention or hospitality to,
nor seek opportunity for, cultivating familiarity with judges.
3 Rule 15.02—A lawyer shall be bound by the rule on privilege communication in
respect of matters disclosed to him by a prospective client.
4 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.
5 Rule 21.01—A lawyer shall not reveal the confidences or secrets of his client
except:
6 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.
Rollo, pp. 1-3.
325
_______________
7 Rollo, p. 10.
8 Id., pp. 12-16.
326
spouses pro bono is not true since he has his own agenda in offering
his services to the spouses; and that the allegation that she is filing
the cases against the spouses because she is being used by a
powerful person9
is not true since she filed the said cases out of her
own free will.
The Commission on Bar Discipline of the IBP sent to the 10
parties
a Notice of Mandatory Conference dated March 1, 2004. On the
scheduled11 conference, only a representative of complainant
appeared. Commissioner Demaree Raval of the IBP-CBD then12
directed both parties to file their respective verified position papers.
Complainant filed a Memorandum reiterating her earlier
assertions and added that respondent prepared and notarized
counter-affidavits of the Gatcheco spouses; that the high-ranking
official referred to by respondent is Judge Ruben Plata and the
accusations of respondent against the said judge is an attack against
a brother in the profession which is a violation of the CPR; and that
respondent continues to use the name of De Guzman in their law
firm despite the fact that said partner has already been appointed as
Assistant
13
Prosecutor of Santiago City, again in violation of the
CPR.
Respondent
14
filed his Position Paper restating his allegations in
his Answer.
On August 23, 2004, Commissioner Wilfredo E.J.E. Reyes issued
an Order notifying both parties to appear before his office on 15
October 28, 2004 for a clarificatory question
16
regarding said case.
On the said date, only respondent appeared
_______________
327
SINUMPAANG SALAYSAY
TUNGKOL SA PAG-UURONG NG DEMANDA
_______________
17 Id., p. 56.
328
_______________
18 Id., p. 58.
19 Id., p. 60.
20 Id., p. 63.
21 Id., pp. 68-69.
329
_______________
22 Id., p. 65.
23 Id., pp. 46-49.
24 See Rule 15.03, Code of Professional Responsibility.
25 Quiambao vs. Bamba, A.C. No. 6708 (CBD Case No. 01-874), August 25,
2005, 468 SCRA 1.
330
yers, which
26
is of paramount importance in the administration of
justice.
One of the tests 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 to the client or invite
suspicion27of unfaithfulness or double-dealing in the performance of
that duty. 28
As we expounded in the recent case of Quiambao vs. Bamba,
_______________
26 Ibid.
27 Santos, Sr. vs. Beltran, A.C. No. 5858, December 11, 2003, 418 SCRA 17, 25-
26.
28 A.C. No. 6708 (CBD Case No. 01-874), August 25, 2005, 468 SCRA 1.
29 Ibid.
331
“. . . [W]e . . . can not sanction his taking up the cause of the adversary of
the party who had sought and obtained legal advice from his firm; this, not
necessarily to prevent any injustice to the plaintiff but to keep above
reproach the honor and integrity of the courts and of the bar. Without
condemning the respondent’s conduct as dishonest, corrupt, or fraudulent,
we do believe that upon the admitted facts it is highly inexpedient. It had the
tendency to bring the profession, of which he is a distinguished member,
“into public
32
disrepute and suspicion and undermine the integrity of
justice.”
The claim of respondent that he acted in good faith and with honest
intention will also not exculpate
33
him as such claim does not render
the prohibition inoperative.
In the same manner, his claim that he could not turn down the
spouses as no other lawyer is willing to take their case cannot
prosper as it is settled that while there may be instances where
lawyers cannot decline representation they cannot be made to labor
under34
conflict of interest between a present client and a prospective
one. Granting also that there really was no other lawyer who could
handle the spouses’ case other than him, still he should have
observed the requirements laid down by the rules by conferring with
_______________
30 Ibid.
31 84 Phil. 569 (1949).
32 Id., p. 579.
33 Quiambao vs. Bamba, supra.
34 Ibid.
332
_______________
333
334
——o0o——