FILIPINA S O. CELEDONIO v. ATTY. JAIME F.

ESTRABILLO
A.C. No. 10553

FACTS:
This is a case of disbarment against Atty. Estrabillo, for his violation of Canon 1,
Rule 1.01 and 1.02, Canon 9, Rule 1.09, Canon 10, Rule 10.01, Canon 15, Rules 15.03
and 15.04, Canon 17, and Canon 19, Rule 19.01 and 19.02 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility (CPR).

Alfrito D. Mah filed an Estafa case against Celedonio’s husband, with Atty.
Estrabillo as the Mah’s legal counsel. Celedonio and her husband met several times with
Estrabillo to negotiate the withdrawal of the criminal case. Estrabillo advised Celedonio
to execute a deed of sale over their house (TCT No. 502969-R), to be used as a security
while they were still paying for the embezzled money. He assured that the said deed
would not be registered or annotated in the title. The Estafa case was dismissed.

Celedonio decided to sell the said house and lot. However, on December 8, 2008,
she received summons from the court regarding a complaint for specific performance
with prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction (WPI) and temporary
restraining order (TRO) filed by Spouses Mah. Apparently, the deed of sale created as a
security, was dated May 5, 2008 and notarized by Atty. Estrabillo. He also requested the
Register of Deeds of Pampanga to register and annotate the deed on the title on
November 27, 2008. When complainants confronted Estrabillo, he merely advised them
to negotiate with Sps. Mah, over which he would back them up. The negotiation was not
effective.

Meanwhile, Celedonio already had a deadline to file a responsive pleading and a

schedule for the hearing for the issuance of the TRO. Celedonio talked to Estrabillo
regarding this, to which he offered to and prepared a Motion for Extension of Time and
Urgent Motion to Postpone for the complainant dated December 22, 2008 and January 8,
2009. Celedonio did not appear in the Jan. 9, 2009 hearing for the motion for
postponement. The hearing still proceeded.

Atty. Estrabillo appeared and manifested that he filed a notice of lis pendens and
adverse claim with the RD of Pampanga. He also filed a Motion to Declare Defendants in
Default on February 4, 2009, granted by the court on February 27. The court finally ruled
in favor of Sps. Mah and a writ of execution was issued.

Celedonio filed the instant administrative complaint, praying for Estrabillo’s disbarment,
since he was deceitfully double-dealing with them to their prejudice. Estrabillo denied the
accusations, stating that although he would help in the negotiations, he never
compromised his relationship with Sps. Mah. He also explained that he suggested a deed
of second mortgage be made, since the property was still mortgaged with the bank, for
the purpose of settling the estafa case. Upon learning that Celedonio was selling the
property, he filed an adverse claim to protect his client’s rights.

The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD), in its Report and

Recommendation on May 22, 2012, which was adopted and approved by the IBP Board
of Governors on March 20, 2013, suspended Atty. Estrabillo from the practice of law for
6 months.

The CBD found no proof in the complaint imputing deceit and other violations,
aside from the act of instructing his secretary to prepare and file the motions. The Board
of Governors added that there was a violation of Rule 15.03 and Canon 17 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, although not intentional. Motions for reconsiderations were
denied since there were no cogent reason to reverse the findings.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Estrabillo should be administratively disciplined

HELD:
The Court affirmed the decision.

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.

Canon 17 - A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be
mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him.
 Estrabillo claimed that his acts of helping Sps. Celedonio were merely
humanitarian, and there was no intention to violate the trust reposed upon him. He even
filed the Motion to Declare Defendants in Default, in favor of Sps. Mah. This cannot
absolve him from liability since the rules are clear.

The relationship between a lawyer and his/her client should ideally be imbued
with the highest level of trust and confidence. The legal profession dictates that it is not a
mere duty, but an obligation, of a lawyer to accord the highest degree of fidelity, zeal,
and fervor in the protection of the client's interest. Thus, part or the lawyer's duty in this
regard is to avoid representing conflicting interests. Jurisprudence is to the effect that a
lawyer's act which invites suspicion of unfaithfulness or double-dealing in the
performance of his duty already evinces inconsistency of interests.

Further, Rule 15.03 requires a written consent of all parties involved, after the full
disclosure of facts, if a lawyer should be involved in conflicting interests. Rule 15.04
states that a written consent must also be made if a lawyer would act as a mediator or
negotiator. No such instrument was made.

Celedonio should not have entrusted her case on her opponent’s lawyer. But she
cannot be blamed for relying upon the motions, since she thought she would be given
more time.

ACCORDINGLY, the Court resolves to SUSPEND Atty. Jaime F. Estrabillo from

the practice 'of law for six (6) months to commence immediately from the receipt of this
Decision, with a WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar offense will warrant
a more severe penalty.