CAPINPIN JR. VS. CESA JR.

CANONS 15 AND 16
Representation of Conflicting Interest

FACTS:

Complainant (Capinpin Jr.) executed a real estate mortgage on 2 of his two lots in favor
of Family Lending Corporation (FLC) as security for a loan amounting to PhP5 Million with
interest at two percent (2%) per month. FLC through its President, Dr. Malaya initiated
foreclosure proceedings due to default in payment. Complainant availed of several legal
remedies, but the auction sale still proceeded. For these cases, FLC engaged respondent
Cesa’s legal services.

Complaint:
- Alleged that during the proceedings, Cesa approached complainant to negotiate the
deferment of the auction sale and the possible settlement of the loan obligation.
- Cesa allegedly represented himself as being capable of influencing the sheriff to defer
the auction sale, as well as his client FLC through Dr. Malaya to accept the amount of
PhP7 Million to fully settle the loan obligation.

Respondent’s Contention:
- Cesa denied the allegations and alleged that it was complainant who asked for his help
to be given more time to raise funds to pay the loan obligation and that Cesa
communicated said request to FLC.
- That the payments alleged in the complaint are advance payments of his Attorney’s
Fees, as evidenced by a Letter signed by complainant and addressed to FLC thru Dr.
Malaya in which complainant expressly stated that he will negotiate for the payment of
respondent’s fees as FLC’s counsel.

IBP Findings
- Suspended Cesa for 1 year for violation of Canon 15.03, for representing conflicting
interests, and Canon 16.01, for not accounting the money received from Capinpin in
favor of FLC.

ISSUE:
Should Atty. Cesa, Jr. be administratively disciplined based on the allegations in the
complaint and evidence on record?

RULING: YES.

Respondent violated Canon 15, Rule 15.03 and Canon 16, Rule 16.01 of the CPR:

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.
Rule 16.01 — A lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or received for
or from the client.

Violation of Rule 15.03:

FLC engaged respondent's legal services to represent it in opposing complainant's

actions to forestall the foreclosure proceedings. As can be gleaned from respondent's position
paper, however, it is admitted that respondent extended help to the complainant in negotiating
with FLC for the reduction of the loan payment and cessation of the foreclosure proceedings.
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. The relationship between
a lawyer and his client is imbued with the highest level of trust and confidence. The reason for
the prohibition on conflict of interest is to avoid the appearance of treachery and double-dealing
for only then can litigants be encouraged to entrust their secrets to their lawyers.

Evidently, Cesa was working on conflicting interests — that of his client, which was to be
able to foreclose and obtain the best amount they could get to cover the loan obligation, and
that of the complainant's, which was to forestall the foreclosure and settle the loan obligation for
a lesser amount.

As to the allegation the FLC had knowledge of Cesa’s dealings, the court found no
record of any consent from any parties allowing Cesa to negotiate. As to respondent’s
admission that he received payments of professional fees from complainant, this only made
matters worse for him since it was highly improper. Respondent’s professional fees must come
from his client, even if eventually such fees will be reimbursed by the adverse party depending
on their agreement. Furthermore, the Letter presented does not, in any way, prove that there
was an agreement between Capinpin and FLC. It is also suspicious that respondent was
already receiving several amounts even before the date of the said Letter, supposedly stating
an agreement between Capinpin and FLC as regards the settlement of the lona obligation and
the payment of Cesa’s professional fees.

Violation of Rule 16.01:

At any rate, even assuming that there was indeed an arrangement between FLC and
complainant that Cesa's professional fees shall be paid by the complainant, which will be later
on deducted from whatever the latter will pay FLC for the settlement of his loan obligation,
respondent's act of accepting such payments from the complainant and appropriating the same
for his professional fees is still reprehensible. The said payments from the complainant are still
considered FLC's money; as such respondent should have accounted the same for his client.

IBP Resolution Affirmed.