lOMoARcPSD|6899935

Ethics Case Note No 6 Lim Vs Villarosa To Number 10

BS Legal Management (San Beda University)

StuDocu is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university

Downloaded by Gedle Geda (gedlegg@gmail.com)
 lOMoARcPSD|6899935

Case No. 6
Lim vs. Villarosa
A.C. No. 5303 | June 15, 2006
Facts:
The respondent represented Mrs. Jalandoni in a civil case. Utmost trust and confidence was
reposed on said counsel, hence delicate and confidential matters involving all the personal
circumstances of his client wre entrusted to the respondent. The latter was provided with all the
necessary information relative to the property in question and likewise on legal matters affecting
the corporation, Penta Resorts Corporation, particularly involving problems which affect Hotel
Alhambra. Said counsel was privy to all transactions and affairs of the corporation/hotel.
The respondent handled the entire case, eventually respondent filed a motion to withdraw as
counsel for Mrs. Jalandoni without any approval or knowledge form the said client. A case was
filed against the respondent, due to conflict of interest to his clients and for not releasing the
significant documents which belongs to Mrs. Jalandoni or PRC and which was allegedly used for
the benefit or advantage of spouses Jalbuena in the case filed against by PRC.

Issue: WON there existed a conflict of interest in the cases represented and handled by
respondent

Held:
Petitioners alleged that as an offshoot of representing conflicting interests, breach of attorney-
client confidentiality and deliberate withholding of records were committed by respondent. To
effectively unravel the alleged conflict of interest, we must look into the cases involved.
Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) highlights the need for candor,
fairness and loyalty in all the dealings of lawyers with their clients. Rule 15.03 of the CPR aptly
provides:
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.
It is only upon strict compliance with the condition of full disclosure of facts that a lawyer may
appear against his client; otherwise, his representation of conflicting interests is reprehensible.31
Conflict of interest may be determined in this manner:
There is representation of conflicting interests if the acceptance of the new retainer will require
the attorney to do anything which will injuriously affect his first client in any matter in which he
represents him and also whether he will be called upon in his new relation, to use against his first
client any knowledge acquired through their connection.
The representation by a lawyer of conflicting interests, in the absence of the written consent of
all parties concerned after a full disclosure of the facts, constitutes professional misconduct
which subjects the lawyer to disciplinary action. Even respondent’s alleged effort to settle the
existing controversy among the family members was improper because the written consent of all
concerned was still required. A lawyer who acts as such in settling a dispute cannot represent any
of the parties to it.

Downloaded by Gedle Geda (gedlegg@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|6899935

Case No. 7
PCGG vs. Sandiganbayan
G.R. No. 151809-12 | April 12, 2005
Facts:
In 1991, PCGG filed a motion to disqualify Mendoza, because of his participation in the
liquidation of Genbank. Genbank (now Allied Bank) is one of the properties that PCGG is
seeking to be sequestered from the Lucio Tan group. PCGG invoked Rule 6.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. Sandiganbayan denied PCGG’s motion. According to the
Sandiganbayan, Mendoza did not take an adverse position to that taken on behalf of the Central
Bank. And Mendoza’s appearance as counsel was beyond the 1 year prohibitory period since he
retired in 1986.

Issue: WON Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility applies to Estelito Mendoza

Held:
No. It does not apply to Mendoza. Sandiganbayan decision is affirmed. The matter, or the act of
Mendoza as Solicitor General is advising the Central Bank on how to proceed with the
liquidation of Genbank. This is not the “matter” contemplated by Rule 6.03 of the CPR. The
matter involved in the liquidation of Genbank is entirely different from the matter invoked in the
PCGG case against the Lucio Tan group. The intervention contemplated in Rule 6.03 should be
substantial and important. The role of Mendoza in the liquidation of Genbank is considered
insubstantial.

Downloaded by Gedle Geda (gedlegg@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|6899935

Case No. 8
Samala vs. Valencia
A.C. No. 5439 | January 22, 2007
Facts:
Complainant Clarita J. Samala filed against Atty. Luciano D. Valencia for Disbarment on the
following grounds: Serving on 2 separate occasions as counsel for contending parties;
Knowingly misleading the court by submitting false documentary evidence; initiating numerous
cases in exchange for non-payment of rental fees; and having a reputation of being immoral by
siring illegitimate children.

Issue: WON respondent should be suspended

Held:
Respondent Atty. Luciano D. Valencia is guilty of misconduct and violation of Canons 21, 10
and 1 of the CPR. It is evident that respondent’s representation of Valdez and Alba against
Bustamante and her husband, in one case, and Valdez against Alba, in another case, is a clear
case of conflict of interests which merits a corresponding sanction from this Court. A lawyer is
the servant of the law and belongs to a profession to which society has entrusted the
administration of law and the dispensation of justice. As such, he should make himself more an
exemplar for others to emulate. The filing of an administrative case against respondent for
protesting the interest of his client and his own right would be putting a burden on a practicing
lawyer who is obligated to defend and prosecute the right of his client. We find respondent liable
for being immoral by siring illegitimate children.

Downloaded by Gedle Geda (gedlegg@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|6899935

Case No. 9
Abaqueta vs. Florido
A.C. No. 5948 | January 22, 2003
Facts:
In this case, Atty. Bernardito Florido appeared as counsel for both petitioner Gamaliel Abaqueta
and his ex-wife, Milagros abaqueta. He first appeared for petitioner in 1983, in a special
proceeding, wherein he declared before the court that the properties in that case were the “sole
and exclusive properties” of Gamaliel Abaqueta. Several years later, in 1991, he appeared for
Milagros Abaqueta, wherein he declared that “(p)laintiff and defendant Gamaliel Abaqueta are
the conjugal owners of those certain parcels of land”, referring to the same parcels of land.
Additionally, petitioner claimed that in the second (1991) case, Florido deliberately gave the
wrong address to the court (Houston, Texas) when he actually knew that petitioner lived in
Phoenix, Arizona. He believed that respondent’s conduct constitutes professional misconduct
and malpractice as well as trifling with court processes. Petitioner also claims that Florido did
not secure his consent before representing his ex-wife.

Issue: WON respondent violate the CPR.

Held:
Yes. There is a conflict of interest if there is an inconsistency in the interests of two or more
opposing parties. The test is whether or not on 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. In short, if he argues for
one client, this argument will be opposed by him when he argues for the other client. There is a
representation of conflicting interests if the acceptance of the new retainer will require the
attorney to do anything which will injuriously affect his first client in any matter in which he
represents him and also whether he will be called upon in his new relation, to use against his first
client any knowledge acquired through their connection. WHEREFORE, Atty. Bernardito A.
Florido is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for Three (3) months. He is further
ADMONISHED to exercise greater care and diligence in the performance of his duties towards
his clients and the court. He is warned that a repetition of the same or similar offense will be
dealt with more severely.

Downloaded by Gedle Geda (gedlegg@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|6899935

Case No. 10
Gonzales vs. Cabucana
A.C. No. 6836 | January 23, 2006
Facts:
Sheriff Gatcheco and his wife went to the house of Gonzales, they harassed Gonzales and asked
her to execute an affidavit of desistance regarding her complaint, Gonzales thereafter filed
against the Gatchecos criminal cases for trespass, grave threats, grave oral defamation,
simple coercion and unjust vexation; where respondents law firm was still representing
Gonzales, herein respondent represented the Gatchecos in the cases filed by Gonzales
against the said sps.,respondent should be disbarred from the practice of law since
respondents acceptance of the cases of the Gatchecos violates the lawyer ±client
relationship between complainant and respondents law firm and renders respondent liable
under CPR particularly Rules 10.01, 13.01,15.02, 15.03, 21.02 and 21.02. Respondent
alleged that he never appeared and represented of such case since it was his brother, Atty.
Edmar Cabucana who appeared and represented Gonzales in said case. He admitted that he is
representing Sheriff Gatcheco and his wife in the cases filed against them bur claimed that his
appearance is pro bono and that the spouses pleaded with him as no other counsel was willing to
take their case.

Issue: WON respondent violated Rule 15.03 of CPR

Held:
Respondent is guilty violating Rule 15.03 of Canon 15 of the CPR. It is well-settled that lawyer
is barred from representing conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned given
after a full disclosure of the facts. Such prohibition is founded on principles of public policy and
good taste as the nature of the lawyer-client relations is one of trust and confidence of the highest
degree. Lawyers are expected not only to keep inviolate the client’s confidence but also to avoid
the 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 proscription against representation of conflicting interests
applies to a situation where the opposing parties are present clients in the same action or in an
unrelated action. Respondents allegation that it was his brother who represented Gonzales, thus
there could be no conflict of interest is no merit. As respondent admitted, it was their law firm
which represented Gonzales in the civil case. Such being the case, the rule against representing
conflicting interest applies. The court consider however as mitigating circumstances the
fact that he is representing the Gatcheco spouses pro bono and that it was his firm and not
respondent personally which handled the civil case of Gonzales. And it was observed 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. Thus, for violation of Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of CPR
and taking consideration of mitigating circumstances, Atty. Cabucana is fined the amount of P

Downloaded by Gedle Geda (gedlegg@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|6899935

2,000 with stern warning that a commission of the same or similar act in the future shall be dealt
with more severely.

Downloaded by Gedle Geda (gedlegg@gmail.com)